Your analysis rests on your producer-consumer model. But this is the wrong starting point for successful open source projects, where my definition of successful is a diverse and broad pool of contributors.
Open source (not free software) is a pragmatic model to encourage co-operation between developers. Pure consumers are simply accidental beneficiaries. Economically, they may appear to be exploitative 'free loaders', but unlike real examples of free loading (such as polluting), pure consumers of code do not impose any costs on anyone. However, your analysis says they are, by saying that these consumers are exploiting the developers. This is only potentially true if the developers are foregoing revenue by not charging consumers when they could. Traditionally, this requires technical copy protection and legal copy protection. However, at the same time, these barriers have a cost too: they block or impede co-operation from other developers, due also trust barriers.
Ironically for your argument, a closed-source model where users are financially 'exploited' by developers makes potential code contributors wary that their contributions will be exploited by those selling the software. This is a strong, in fact probably fatal, barrier to gaining developer contributions. Open source licences remove impediments to co-operative code-development by parties who are strangers to each other. It is remarkable, actually.
The open source model indeed does not make sense where a developer gets little relative benefit from encouraging other developers to contribute. This might because they don't need other developers, or can't attract them (perhaps the user-base is too niche). I said 'relative benefit'; perhaps the developers have some IP that is so compelling that the potential for user payments is very high, and that it is better to take these revenues, stay closed source and pay developers.
In these cases, the developers' economically optimal decision is not to go open source.
But to repeat myself, in a genuinely successful open source project, apparently the opportunity cost of user payments is actually lower than the benefits of attracting external developer contributions to the mutual benefit of participating developers. This is not conjecture, this is really happening, and a good scientist bases their theories on observations. Your essay sounds like the famous academic who lamented 'it might work in practice, but it doesn't work in theory'.
I do not dispute that some projects which started as open source find themselves in a position where it's not the right choice. I think there are examples of VC-financed startups that went open source as a tool to gain market share, but were not able to get any compensating benefits (that is, they did not get a critical mass of external contributors)
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.
Your analysis rests on your producer-consumer model. But this is the wrong starting point for successful open source projects, where my definition of successful is a diverse and broad pool of contributors.
Open source (not free software) is a pragmatic model to encourage co-operation between developers. Pure consumers are simply accidental beneficiaries. Economically, they may appear to be exploitative 'free loaders', but unlike real examples of free loading (such as polluting), pure consumers of code do not impose any costs on anyone. However, your analysis says they are, by saying that these consumers are exploiting the developers. This is only potentially true if the developers are foregoing revenue by not charging consumers when they could. Traditionally, this requires technical copy protection and legal copy protection. However, at the same time, these barriers have a cost too: they block or impede co-operation from other developers, due also trust barriers.
Ironically for your argument, a closed-source model where users are financially 'exploited' by developers makes potential code contributors wary that their contributions will be exploited by those selling the software. This is a strong, in fact probably fatal, barrier to gaining developer contributions. Open source licences remove impediments to co-operative code-development by parties who are strangers to each other. It is remarkable, actually.
The open source model indeed does not make sense where a developer gets little relative benefit from encouraging other developers to contribute. This might because they don't need other developers, or can't attract them (perhaps the user-base is too niche). I said 'relative benefit'; perhaps the developers have some IP that is so compelling that the potential for user payments is very high, and that it is better to take these revenues, stay closed source and pay developers.
In these cases, the developers' economically optimal decision is not to go open source.
But to repeat myself, in a genuinely successful open source project, apparently the opportunity cost of user payments is actually lower than the benefits of attracting external developer contributions to the mutual benefit of participating developers. This is not conjecture, this is really happening, and a good scientist bases their theories on observations. Your essay sounds like the famous academic who lamented 'it might work in practice, but it doesn't work in theory'.
I do not dispute that some projects which started as open source find themselves in a position where it's not the right choice. I think there are examples of VC-financed startups that went open source as a tool to gain market share, but were not able to get any compensating benefits (that is, they did not get a critical mass of external contributors)