Tidelift wants open-source developers to get paid
&quot;That was risky, because Babel is open source—meaning it is freely available online, and users don’t have to pay for it.&quot;<p>I don&#x27;t get why many seem to think that Open Source = No cost for the user. Now I haven&#x27;t read up that much on the OS philosophy so that might be why, but I have read a bit about free software, like Free Software, Free Society:
Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman[0] for example, how anyone could mistake free software as software at no cost is beyond me. You can of course make it available at no cost, but then, it&#x27;s your problem if you&#x27;re not getting paid. Free software basically means that you&#x27;re free to review and edit  the software as you wish, (with some other implications as well if you read up on the GPL-3.0 license) and as far as I know, that&#x27;s basically the purpose of open source as well. I thought companies, or developers, made their code available to get feedback, find bugs and issues more quickly, show the rest of the world that they have nothing fishy to hide etc. But I had no idea that it also meant that code automatically became gratis for everyone.<p>[0]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;philosophy&#x2F;fsfs&#x2F;rms-essays.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;philosophy&#x2F;fsfs&#x2F;rms-essays.pdf</a>