| There is a difference between writing software because you like it or want to solve your problem and writing software because you plan to earn something. Respectfully, I'm not here with a developer, and I disagree with you. mold developer wrote a linker starting with something - he used OS, editor, desktop environment, a browser, and even GitHub, which are mostly free. He started with a free base. He didn't write his own compiler, a language etc. He accepted patches, ideas, and issue reports from other people. If you decide to sell something but "it does not sell", either it is a problem with your business, or you simply hire a salesperson. > I have seen large orgs use softwares from individual developers who release software with permissive license and never contribute anything back And yet, many companies contribute back with something that individual developers could not even think about developing due to constrained resources - compilers, virtual machines, OS drivers, etc. Many of them will donate money anonymously. Even so-much-hated AWS gives your company/brand/project something no one thinks about: wide visibility and free marketing. Let's be honest: people started to learn about ElasticSearch when AWS started to give it as an installation option for free (saying this as someone who started with ES when Kimchy pushed his early alpha version). > It is very hard to sell anything to developers Developers are not a good comparison because developers usually bad in sales and overall business management. How often have you heard: "Oh, you pay for FTP cloud service? I can write that in a day; let me do some pip/npm magic." Writing code is the easy part; making profitable business from that is the hard part. > It takes an immense amount of effort to build and a simple `docker pull` to use it. Yet that "simple docker pull" took millions of dollars (of VC money, big corps investments, and general FOSS time) and was given for free. > Builders and creators should be paid for what they have built. Builders and creators should be paid for what they have built, but after they stamp the price on their work from the beginning. Let the market decide if that price is worth it. If they see their project took off and they can earn some bucks by milking users later, that is cheating. |
No, it isn't.
Open source developers are not under an obligation to continue providing their time for free. If they choose to pivot the project to some form of monetization, that's their right.
Previous versions remain available under previous licenses - that gift to the world remains, and stays available for communities to fork from, should they choose to.
If a project gains sufficient traction and delivers sufficient value that people depend on it, it's in everyone's best interest that the developer finds a way to monetize, so they're motivated to continue working on the project.
As you say, then the market will decide if it's a price worth paying, if they can live without the service, or if they'd rather take on the build burden themselves via a fork.
But Free Today does not entitle you to Free Forever.