[sallveburrpi]

> which sees participation as entirely motivated by money.

I think it’s rather that people need to eat. He admits that some wealthy devs will continue to work for free (do charity basically) but for those who want to make a living from OSS it will be harder and harder.

But yea as you said ultimately it probably won’t matter that much.

[ptero]

> I think it’s rather that people need to eat.

They do and always did. But open source was originally not about that, but about building something cool and letting others build on that. And, crucially, about GPL preventing large companies from extinguishing your work "because copyright". I remember Bill Gates calling GPL a spreading virus that tech world has to fight.

Sometime along this path monetizing open source became a thing. Now it is apparently becoming less lucrative. OK. That's the nature of changes, but IMO it does not kill open source. It might eventually make it even better, as commercial open source has become too widespread and money corrupts. My 2c.

[jowea]

I think free software was more about that about that. Open source always was about getting financially motivated companies onboard.