Doesn't exist.
I don't know if this was ever common knowledge, but it's certainly not a new idea. Free software, per the Free Software Foundation, is only free if people are free to redistribute it commercially without having to pay the author. In a sense, every time you build a Drupal site for someone else for a fee, you are charging to distribute free software to them that was authored by other people while providing additional services to tailor it to their needs.
If I had to guess, the more mainstream open source as a development methodology became, the more people adopted it without understanding or appreciating its philosophical origins. Open source as a growth strategy became inevitable while simultaneously kicking against the goads of the four essential freedoms of the movement that birthed it, even though these freedoms are what enabled multi-billion dollar ecosystems like Drupal's to grow.
It's not hard to understand why people believe there is a moral imperative to financially compensate free software authors. It seems like common sense that it is "fair" to reward people with money on whose work a lot of other people are making money. If you think like Automattic or Elastic, you might decry it as "unfair" for other people to "capture more value" than you because of their excellence at providing services around your project.
Another argument for a moral imperative with a collectivist bent would be that a project is unsustainable without paying its authors, and it is good for the project to continue to exist and to grow. Therefore, it's "right" to find ways to compensate them to keep developing it for the sake of perpetuating the project for everyone.
However, no matter how reasonable these arguments may sound, when you choose to distribute your work under the GPL or similar licenses, you are participating in a movement that places no moral imperative on your financial compensation, even if you would really to have it or benefit from it. The onus is on you, the individual, to determine how you will afford to continue developing and releasing free software should you choose to do so.
Fortunately, many free software authors are compensated in other ways. They build or join companies offering professional services based on their expertise (e.g., my own, Centarro). They develop strong personal reputations that lead to subsequent job offers or commercial opportunities. They grow or participate in communities like Drupal's that create social pressure for and commercial advantage in directly funding contribution and free software development.
For myself and many others like me, seeing a project propagate is its own kind of reward. Events like DrupalCon are incredibly motivating for me, because I get to hear from many people whose lives have been improved and who have made significant amounts of money because of my contributions. I'm genuinely thrilled to know that my efforts, first through Ubercart and then Drupal Commerce, have been such a blessing to so many people around the world, and I've never once thought a single one of them owed me anything at all.
The satisfaction I experience here is perfectly explained by Drupal's first value: impact gives my work purpose, irrespective of how I feed my family.
Last year in the wake of Matt Mullenweg's scandalous leadership of WordPress, David Heinemieir Hannson made a similar point quite eloquently: "And that's also the open source spirit: To let a billion lemons go unsqueezed. To capture vanishingly less than you create. To marvel at a vast commons of software, offered with no strings attached, to any who might wish to build."
I do believe it's worthwhile to brainstorm and experiment with ways to create more sustainable open source projects. Those discussions should focus on how things might be even better under different circumstances, though, and should not be premised on the idea that people or companies are wrong for not doing something they were neither asked nor required to do in the first place.
Comments