[netr0ute]

Why not make it free and open source?

[mtlynch]

It requires work to create and maintain it, so it's reasonable for the developer to be compensated for that work.

It would be great if all software were free and open-source, but it makes it hard to incentivize people to create that software if they're not being compensated.

Photopea has a paid version, so people who don't want ads can just use that version.

[space_fountain]

Well because people need money to eat and because lots of effort would go it it

[lopkeny12ko]

"People need money to eat" is not mutually exclusive with "writing free and open source software."

"lots of effort would go it it" is true regardless of software licensing.

[space_fountain]

But the effort would not be compensated by this capitalistic world we live in

[troupo]

Because being free and open source will not fund running and development costs?

[netr0ute]

If it's FOSS, then development costs are 0.

[nemothekid]

This reply has broken my brain. Are there seriously people who think like this?

[Retr0id]

That's not what FOSS means.

[troupo]

People spend 0 development hours on FOSS? Because that's the only way dev costs are zero.