[nchmy]

What a world we're living in - I point out that a hostile comment is hostile, and I'm labeled hostile.

Once again, they aren't charging anything. Pay them if you want some largely-unnecessary features, or if you just want to support years of hard work and innovation. That's what I did.

But you do you.

[speff]

If you're amenable to feedback, the impression I got from your initial comment was "a hostile comment pointing out another hostile comment". It assumed a negative motivation on OOP based on vibes and you ran with it. Even this comment's parting line:

> But you do you.

- seems like a truism. I get the feeling it's meant to be read as "I give up. You can keep whatever wrong viewpoint you have".

[nchmy]

Finally a good-faith reply!

I concede that my original comment here was somewhat hostile, but only really the first line. And it wasn't even all that hostile - especially when the rest of the comment was really just informative and positive about datastar.

And, moreover, is standing up to poor behaviour - even if done in a somewhat hostile/confrontational way - really such a bad thing? It seems quite clear to me that they were not communicating in good faith - they didnt come to discuss features, philosophy about open source sustainability, or actual reality of the messaging on the site and their discord server.

Instead THEY are explicitly saying that Datastar's devs are being dishonest in some way for having a pro license (which, again, they quite clearly say most people should not buy) as a way to bring a modicum of sustainability to something that theyve dedicated years to and given 99% of the value away for free.

They could have said "This looks interesting, but I noticed that there's a pro license if you want to get some features. Are these features necessary? Is this price reasonable? Should we be against there being a 501c3 behind this? etc..."

But they did none of that. I think that all that a reasonable person can really conclude is that they're either the disdainful sort of person who thinks all code should be free for everyone, or that they are just trolling, or perhaps even that they dont like how datastar is challenging the status quo of webdev.

Hence, "you do you" - you interpreted it exactly as I intended.

[xdfgh1112]

I'm sorry people didn't immediately take to this financing model as well as you did. The average person is not as invested as you and most people are going to immediately switch off if they hear part of the functionality costs money and this isn't mentioned anywhere on the front page. Doesn't matter how "unnecessary" these features are, it's a bad look.

Plenty of other open source projects make money without attracting this kind of negative feedback. It's curious to me that you suggest everyone is intentionally being negative or malicious here, instead of looking at why the project caused such a response.

[nchmy]

People pay for things all the time, why not (almost surely unnecessary) code? Why do you all feel entitled to free access to thousands of hours of very highly skilled devs' efforts (most of which they actually are giving away for free)?

Moreover, it is quite common for there to be pro versions of libraries these days - tailwind, all sorts of component libraries, etc..

> Plenty of other open source projects make money without attracting this kind of negative feedback

We dont seem to be living in the same reality. In mine, maintaining open source projects is a nearly-completely thankless, profit-less endeavour. It is a rare exception that someone can earn a living from it. And datastar's devs have zero expectation that they'll do so, even with this model - hence it is registered as a 501c3, and the funds will cover things like travelling to conferences to talk about it.

[xdfgh1112]

I think the pro version and charging stuff is totally fine. It's the lack of transparency that bothers people. I shouldn't have to figure out their profit model from HN comments. If you want to be paid for your work, charge for the whole library or make the free/pro distinction very clear to people. Don't try to hook them in with a free offering while locking features behind a paywall that they discover later.

Or if you want to be altruistic (as you keep referring to nonprofit) make it free and solicit donations/patreon.

The current approach is certainly a new one and I am interested to see if it pays off.

[nchmy]

99% is already free. That seems pretty altruistic to me.

And they don't really care if it "pays off" - it's not meant to