This post was edited and reformatted on 2026-07-16.
Open Source Software in a world of capitalism can only exist as a pastime for the already-rich. Only companies extracting profit from something else can afford to maintain OSS. Only individuals paid for something else can contribute significant work to OSS projects in their spare time.
As a corollary, insistence on “pure altruism” as the basis of participation in OSS is actually a shorthand for excluding those who are not already wealthy.
Consequently, we shouldn’t be surprised to see privilege-centered behavior within OSS projects, as comfortable, wealthy individuals steer projects to reflect their points of view. It will always remain a struggle to make OSS inclusive and representative of those who aren’t already enjoying excess wealth and spare time. After all, who else could spare the resources to lead a large project without getting paid?
It’s also a precarious thing to profit directly from maintaining OSS and selling it as a service, precisely because someone else can copy and repackage your work for less money—which is entirely within the spirit of OSS—and undercut your business model. A business truly in the spirit of GPL would celebrate such a copy; but a business that must profit from their work on OSS would see it as theft of their livelihood. So it should also come as no surprise when people who have monetary interest in OSS behave in capitalistic or anticompetitive ways through OSS projects, including overtly influencing the priorities of projects for their own benefit.