@lispi314 @teidesu @a1ba I never said it was mutually exclusive. I said it was more difficult and an underfunding issue, not a lack of funding issue. Relying on donations isn’t a great practice to make a living in most cases, particularly for software.

If you have some scheme in mind, I’d love to hear it, but just because someone wants to monetize their work doesn’t mean they are intentionally being malicious. That’s where my disagreement was and is.

@lispi314 @teidesu @a1ba Edit: monetize by not releasing the source

@johnabs @lispi314 @teidesu redhat moment

@johnabs @a1ba @teidesu They may not recognize it as malice even in themselves, but in hindering the detectability of malicious behavior or upstream compromise and the ability to change such undesirable behavior by asserting leverage over others, they are nevertheless acting it out.

That being said, the best model for funding is essentially that of contracted development or support. There are quite a few cooperatives around based on exactly that model. It does not depend on secrecy of the source nor maintaining any particular leverage, and due to the economics of cooperatives not requiring an absurd climb to ever-increasing profits, it is more sustainable.

Of course I'm *very* aware of the issues related to contracting/consultancy and/or starting a business. I'm incapable of the latter and I had some deeply negative experiences with the former. Generally, it is far preferable to consult as a company/cooperative/entity than to be dispatched to a client, as then toxic work environments at the client affect you as well (and even worse, since you're a disposable consultant as far as they're concerned).