1. While some companies do sponsor full-time OSS work, the this is still rare in the industry at large. The vast majority of OSS contributors are not employed full-time to maintain infrastructure--they contribute in part-time capacities or unpaid volunteer roles.
2. The point wasn’t that AI eliminates maintenance, but that it can help reduce the burden. OSS infrastructure requires sustained effort, yes--but innovations in automation are already reducing repetitive maintenance work and helping small teams do more with less. And yes, I maintain an open source project for many years, I don't like to speak without experience.
3. Mentioning Grafana wasn’t meant to be a full case study, but a shorthand example of OSS sustainability. Their model is well-known. Grafana shows how OSS projects can translate community investment into viable businesses.
Michael, I appreciate that you took the time to respond, but I honestly don’t know what your intentions were with the tone you used. From the start--telling people to be skeptical of my post, implying I don’t know what I’m talking about, and ending with "I could go on but don’t have time"--it came across as dismissive and superior. It made me feel small, incapable, and like you were making assumptions about me personally, which was hurtful.
I had to ask for facts just to steer this into a constructive discussion. That’s not how we build healthy conversations. And yes--I do listen, every day, to peers and customers. But only when there’s mutual respect and a willingness to engage, not when someone throws criticism without backing it up.
If your goal is to offer feedback or corrections to the post, I’m genuinely open to that. I’d be happy to iterate and clarify points. But if this is how you want to engage, I’m not interested in continuing the conversation.
Here are just three points where I think your article is misleading:
1. "Doing so as part of your full-time job is rare, and it can even backfire" -- This is not true. Many of the world's top open source software projects are backed by companies who pay the developers quite well. While there is certainly many open source projects that are "volunteer only" projects, and by the number of projects these might seem to be greater, if you look at the software we rely on for infrastructure, what you'll find is that this software is developer by professionals--which makes sense, because writing open source infrastructure is really hard!
2. "further reducing the investment needed to maintain the open source layer." I wonder if you really know what "maintain" means... for infrastructure which is in production for 10+ years, that means patching monthly. There is nothing about an AI agent that is going to "reduce that investment"--it requires a signifcant sustained, professional effort.
3. "Look at Grafana if you need proof." -- An interesting idea. What exactly should I look at Grafana for? What's their business model? How do they segment the market? What's their monetization strategy? How do they interact with their customers? How are they able to leverage their open source community to business advantage, and what are the tradeoffs? All these are interesting questions... you just assume it's obvious--it's not.
I could go on here, but I don't have time. I'm not "just promoting my podcast"--which by the way is a free resource I created for open source founders to hear first hand accounts from people who are actually in the trenches, building businesses. Emily's podcast is even better then mine. If you are a founder, listen to your peers. Avoid doing so at your own business peril.
Beware: This is a dangerous article rife with misinformation that any open source founder should read very skeptically. I suggest hearing a wider array of founders on the podcast "The Business of Open Source" or my podcast "Open Source Underdogs" before deciding to start any business around an open source product.
Thanks Michael, I appreciate your answers:
1. While some companies do sponsor full-time OSS work, the this is still rare in the industry at large. The vast majority of OSS contributors are not employed full-time to maintain infrastructure--they contribute in part-time capacities or unpaid volunteer roles.
2. The point wasn’t that AI eliminates maintenance, but that it can help reduce the burden. OSS infrastructure requires sustained effort, yes--but innovations in automation are already reducing repetitive maintenance work and helping small teams do more with less. And yes, I maintain an open source project for many years, I don't like to speak without experience.
3. Mentioning Grafana wasn’t meant to be a full case study, but a shorthand example of OSS sustainability. Their model is well-known. Grafana shows how OSS projects can translate community investment into viable businesses.
Michael, I appreciate that you took the time to respond, but I honestly don’t know what your intentions were with the tone you used. From the start--telling people to be skeptical of my post, implying I don’t know what I’m talking about, and ending with "I could go on but don’t have time"--it came across as dismissive and superior. It made me feel small, incapable, and like you were making assumptions about me personally, which was hurtful.
I had to ask for facts just to steer this into a constructive discussion. That’s not how we build healthy conversations. And yes--I do listen, every day, to peers and customers. But only when there’s mutual respect and a willingness to engage, not when someone throws criticism without backing it up.
If your goal is to offer feedback or corrections to the post, I’m genuinely open to that. I’d be happy to iterate and clarify points. But if this is how you want to engage, I’m not interested in continuing the conversation.
Here are just three points where I think your article is misleading:
1. "Doing so as part of your full-time job is rare, and it can even backfire" -- This is not true. Many of the world's top open source software projects are backed by companies who pay the developers quite well. While there is certainly many open source projects that are "volunteer only" projects, and by the number of projects these might seem to be greater, if you look at the software we rely on for infrastructure, what you'll find is that this software is developer by professionals--which makes sense, because writing open source infrastructure is really hard!
2. "further reducing the investment needed to maintain the open source layer." I wonder if you really know what "maintain" means... for infrastructure which is in production for 10+ years, that means patching monthly. There is nothing about an AI agent that is going to "reduce that investment"--it requires a signifcant sustained, professional effort.
3. "Look at Grafana if you need proof." -- An interesting idea. What exactly should I look at Grafana for? What's their business model? How do they segment the market? What's their monetization strategy? How do they interact with their customers? How are they able to leverage their open source community to business advantage, and what are the tradeoffs? All these are interesting questions... you just assume it's obvious--it's not.
I could go on here, but I don't have time. I'm not "just promoting my podcast"--which by the way is a free resource I created for open source founders to hear first hand accounts from people who are actually in the trenches, building businesses. Emily's podcast is even better then mine. If you are a founder, listen to your peers. Avoid doing so at your own business peril.
Beware: This is a dangerous article rife with misinformation that any open source founder should read very skeptically. I suggest hearing a wider array of founders on the podcast "The Business of Open Source" or my podcast "Open Source Underdogs" before deciding to start any business around an open source product.
Hi Michael,
I’d appreciate if you could be explicit about which misinformation you found in my writing besides just the call out and a plug to your podcast.