zlacker

I'm genuinely curious which specific projects you're referring to, that are both highly important and also unable to secure donations.

>>wavemo+(OP)
A better question is which projects are actually paying all or most of their major contributors industry rates based on donations? It seems like the word "important" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. I bet even for the projects you have in mind that most contributors never receive a cent, and the major contributors have only received compensation for a fraction of their work if calculated at industry rates. A quick look at open collective should show you how little money there is to be made in open-sourcing code in of itself.

>>evantb+se3
That clarifies the disconnect. I never claimed that open-source development pays "all or most of their major contributors industry rates". I said "most of the really substantial open-source projects are able to get a good amount of donations and corporate sponsors."

You seem to have misunderstood "good" to mean "everyone involved in the project will make equivalent to what they could have made working the same number of hours in Silicon Valley". When really all I meant was that the founder, and maybe sometimes a small group adjacent, can afford to spend all or at least part of their time maintaining and steering the project. If that's your argument, then you and I are in agreement.

Another commenter in this thread said it best - Open Source is a community. People participate in it because they enjoy doing so, not to get rich. If I can do something I enjoy, on my own schedule, entirely freed from corporate interests, and get rent money for it, I would certainly call that "good".

>>wavemo+wy3
Thank you for clarifying. Correct, I wouldn't call anything below industry averages to be a "good" trade for full-time work.