[lmm]

> But it's not a bait and switch because we don't have a right to his future work under whatever license we like. Imagine the developer was hit by a bus right now, or became a cloistered monk. Same difference.

If he takes people's donation money with the implicit or explicit promise that he's going to make a good-faith effort to continue working on the code, he has a moral obligation to do that IMO. Getting hit by a bus wouldn't be his fault, but choosing to abandon it to become a monk would be.

[iudqnolq]

> If he takes people's donation money with the implicit or explicit promise that he's going to make a good-faith effort to continue working on the code

In the absence of clear language I think it's unreasonable to expect a small amount of money to create an infinite obligation.

I'd expect a donation to be spent on development expenses, including time. I'd expect the developer to continue developing until the money runs out, or return the remaining money.

Imagine you have GitHub sponsorships providing $2,000/month. You use that money to cover all your expenses and work on OSS full time. Everyone stops donating today. Surely you'd get a job and stop working on OSS full time?

[lmm]

Sure, I think you don't have an obligation to work forever. Equally I think your moral obligation is not zero. "continue developing until the money runs out, or return the remaining money" sounds like a good answer.