I never said I had a bad experience. I had a pretty great experience, and it was an awesome project. But I worked hard to come up with a way to make it sustainable.
Software that doesn't exist won't reach as many people as software that is developed for free. Sustainability only becomes a problem after software has proven its value.
And you're assuming software you get paid for doesn't get made?
That's exactly one of the problems with this mindset.
Don't get people to do open source by convincing them of stuff that just isn't true.
Whether it's paid or free software, if you can deliver it when you make it for free, you can deliver just the same if you get paid.
Making software is already value. From the moment you have an idea that you can test in the market, and that you can deliver, you can get paid. You don't have to start coding, do open source, or have users.
If you launch open source just to get validation, you're misunderstanding what validation means.
The only real validation of your sustainability is the moment people pay you.
In short, sustainability is your responsibility from before you start. Open source is a decision with consequences you need to think through beforehand, and with its own serious cons.
You can get paid for exactly the same work you'd otherwise do open source, including if you're still a new coder gaining experience. They're called paid traineeships, with experienced teams that will pay you to learn from them.
Open source should only be promoted for what open source is. If you misunderstand open source, people will sacrifice the money they could've earned by being convinced that open source is always a smart choice.
People who get paid well also have more room to work a few less paid hours to contribute to open source or charity. "Help yourself before you help others" is great advice, and more open sourcers should listen to it.
More open source projects are also moving to dual licensing: open core code, but some features come at a premium. And I think that's a healthy example of sustainability, while giving back to open source without sacrificing yourself for it.
But if I'm being honest, a lot of the problem here is improper expectation setting.
I mean, if you're writing articles titled "good reasons to do open source for free" without including the obvious cons and a statistical overview of dying versus growing projects (sustainability), what expectations do you think you're setting?
I feel like we’re talking past each other, so I won’t continue here. I’d love to have you on The Changelog to dive deeper into this conversation in a more profitable format. PM/email me if you’re interested.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I never said I had a bad experience. I had a pretty great experience, and it was an awesome project. But I worked hard to come up with a way to make it sustainable.
And you're assuming software you get paid for doesn't get made?
That's exactly one of the problems with this mindset.
Don't get people to do open source by convincing them of stuff that just isn't true.
In short, sustainability is your responsibility from before you start. Open source is a decision with consequences you need to think through beforehand, and with its own serious cons.
You can get paid for exactly the same work you'd otherwise do open source, including if you're still a new coder gaining experience. They're called paid traineeships, with experienced teams that will pay you to learn from them.
Open source should only be promoted for what open source is. If you misunderstand open source, people will sacrifice the money they could've earned by being convinced that open source is always a smart choice.
People who get paid well also have more room to work a few less paid hours to contribute to open source or charity. "Help yourself before you help others" is great advice, and more open sourcers should listen to it.
More open source projects are also moving to dual licensing: open core code, but some features come at a premium. And I think that's a healthy example of sustainability, while giving back to open source without sacrificing yourself for it.
I mean, if you're writing articles titled "good reasons to do open source for free" without including the obvious cons and a statistical overview of dying versus growing projects (sustainability), what expectations do you think you're setting?
I feel like we’re talking past each other, so I won’t continue here. I’d love to have you on The Changelog to dive deeper into this conversation in a more profitable format. PM/email me if you’re interested.