It happens all the time, a maintainer quits/abandons some opensource project due to economic realities. There are comics, jokes, threads, and so on about what the realities of maintaining opensource software are and that most people are not willing to donate or contribute in any way besides opening issues.
There is a lot of resistance to stuff like the business source license, but people do have to earn a living somehow. Doing so with opensource would be amazing. In lieu of the contested licence, could a template similar to Reminna's actually work? Basically "pay to get this fixed/implemented, make a PR, or it's low priority/ 'I will get to it when I get to it'".
Relevant part of template
### Contributions
In return, or to fix this issue, I'd be willing to:
- [ ] Fix this myself.
- [ ] [Donate](https://remmina.org/donations/) ___ and/or have donated ___ towards fixing it.
- [ ] Take a donation of ___ to fix it.
- [ ] Update the [documentation](https://remmina.gitlab.io/remminadoc.gitlab.io/md__c_o_n_t_r_i_b_u_t_i_n_g.html).
- [ ] Update the [wiki](https://gitlab.com/Remmina/Remmina/-/wikis/home).
- [ ] Translate Remmina in my native language(s) (___) on [Hosted Weblate](https://hosted.weblate.org/projects/remmina/remmina/).
Anti Commercial-AI license
Only if it's for Client specific Extensions not the core project. Basically freelance work. Paid bug fixes and feature requests to core are a big no-go.
Why? Isn't the core the most important part? And why is free work (core) better than freelance work? I'm not sure I get where you're coming from.
Anti Commercial-AI license
Then corporations will decide even more where open source projects are going. If you pay me you decide where the project is going, not me.
However, if core development is unrelated to my income, I have full control over it's fate and don't need to implement what's in the interest of some shitty corporation.
Why do you assume the developer has to implement what could be paid for? (Payments need not happen beforehand as they could be held in escrow, paid after the fact, or in instalments e.g after milestones) Why is the assumption that devs will give up agency? And why the assumption that all paid requests will be by corporations?
Anti Commercial-AI license
If 80% of your income comes from a single company that pays you to develop the features they want, can you afford to decline specific requests without risking that client? Probably not. Without income diversification, you can quickly end up in a situation where your client dictates your work.
Because financial dependence limits choice. When a developer relies on just a few clients, those clients gain leverage over them, making it difficult to turn down requests, even if they’d prefer to.
Because private individuals rarely spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to get a feature implemented. A more realistic approach for individual users would be crowdfunding or pooling resources to fund specific features.