On 2019-09-18 11:31, Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
Boost - Dev mailing list wrote
On 2019-09-17 20:35, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
b) I think its time to seriously start to consider ideas about who open source authors can get compensated for their efforts are widely used.
If you (not personally you - in general) are looking for material compensation for your work then you've probably come to the wrong project. Not that rewarding developer's work is bad, but when you release source code under BSL or any other open source license, you have to understand that that act of release alone does not ensue compensation in return. In other words, you're not selling your code in a project like Boost, you're gifting it. Though you may receive immaterial compensation, like recognition among fellow developers and a nice line in your resumeĢ.
There are situations when an open source software developer is perfectly entitled to expect compensation from users of her/his software.
Yes, of course, but that is an agreement between users and the developer that does not follow from the act of the source release. Often, quite the opposite. For example, the developer may agree to implement a feature for a certain payment. As part of that agreement, he may or may not release that source code afterwards, and the conditions/license of such release may be different from when he implements something else for free for the same project. IOW, if you simply release a piece of code, you cannot expect to be paid for it. For that you have to sell it, in one way or another. Specifically in Boost, we don't sell code and don't receive any payment for our work on libraries. So if someone comes here in hope to be rewarded for his work, that expectation is wrong. There may be cases when the time a maintainer spends on Boost is paid for by his employer or that the library is maintained outside Boost on paid basis and the Boost version is the "free" version or something like that, but in any case, the developer is not receiving compensation from the Boost project.
A successful project can easily become a maintenance hassle then satisfaction, self-fulfillment and good looking resume are not enough to keep things rolling.
Of course. There are plenty reasons to want to receive compensation, and there's nothing wrong with it.
The GPL, for example, makes it clear that should the program prove defective, she/he assumes the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction: https://media.ccc.de/v/bucharest-322-the-secret-life-of-open-source-develope...
In this case "she/he" is the user, not the developer. Pretty much any open source license contains a disclaimer that lifts any damage/losses responsibility from the developer.