Read on Twitter
I see many people looking at this and say "then it's no longer OSS". To that my reaction is... "so what?" (thread) https://twitter.com/pomber/status/1337072168778260480
As consumers of OSS it is often too easy to think of the software as public utility that just exists. Many of us treat the free, unrestricted availability of OSS as our natural right.
So when we discuss whether "paywall for issues" is a good idea, too many focus solely on "is this good for the software itself" (e.g. missing quality bug reports) but not about the *actual people* behind the software.
We do need to realize that software doesn't write itself. The time and energy poured into these software come from actual people who need to make a living.
It's also important to note that today there are many massively consumed OSS software written by small teams or individuals. The user/maintainer ratio of these projects is insane to think about. The sheer amount of issues coming become a never ending task of catching up.
Due to many's perception of OSS as public utility, maintainers of highly used software often have to deal with abuse, animosity, entitled demands or simply requests of free tech support.
This is what leads to burnout, abandoned projects, and churn. When we prioritize OSS availability/quality over the well being of their maintainers, it doesn't necessarily lead to the optimal outcome. We are putting code before people.
I'd rather we put people before code. Authors of software have the right to do whatever they want with their labor. They can sell it as commercial, provide it for completely free, OR do *something in between*.
I don't really care if it's "real OSS." What I care about is whether such middle-ground models (e.g. issue paywalls) can potentially could potentially bring more net positive gains for all devs.
Will it work? I don't know - but I think it's worth exploring, and we should be open to such ideas and allow people to experiment with them without going all OSS crusaders and call it blasphemy.
