this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
239 points (91.9% liked)

Open Source

43201 readers
804 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

All my new code will be closed-source from now on. I've contributed millions of lines of carefully written OSS code over the past decade, spent thousands of hours helping other people. If you want to use my libraries (1M+ downloads/month) in the future, you have to pay.

I made good money funneling people through my OSS and being recognized as expert in several fields. This was entirely based on HUMANS knowing and seeing me by USING and INTERACTING with my code. No humans will ever read my docs again when coding agents do it in seconds. Nobody will even know it's me who built it.

Look at Tailwind: 75 million downloads/month, more popular than ever, revenue down 80%, docs traffic down 40%, 75% of engineering team laid off. Someone submitted a PR to add LLM-optimized docs and Wathan had to decline - optimizing for agents accelerates his business's death. He's being asked to build the infrastructure for his own obsolescence.

Two of the most common OSS business models:

  • Open Core: Give away the library, sell premium once you reach critical mass (Tailwind UI, Prisma Accelerate, Supabase Cloud...)
  • Expertise Moat: Be THE expert in your library - consulting gigs, speaking, higher salary

Tailwind just proved the first one is dying. Agents bypass the documentation funnel. They don't see your premium tier. Every project relying on docs-to-premium conversion will face the same pressure: Prisma, Drizzle, MikroORM, Strapi, and many more.

The core insight: OSS monetization was always about attention. Human eyeballs on your docs, brand, expertise. That attention has literally moved into attention layers. Your docs trained the models that now make visiting you unnecessary. Human attention paid. Artificial attention doesn't.

Some OSS will keep going - wealthy devs doing it for fun or education. That's not a system, that's charity. Most popular OSS runs on economic incentives. Destroy them, they stop playing.

Why go closed-source? When the monetization funnel is broken, you move payment to the only point that still exists: access. OSS gave away access hoping to monetize attention downstream. Agents broke downstream. Closed-source gates access directly. The final irony: OSS trained the models now killing it. We built our own replacement.

My prediction: a new marketplace emerges, built for agents. Want your agent to use Tailwind? Prisma? Pay per access. Libraries become APIs with meters. The old model: free code -> human attention -> monetization. The new model: pay at the gate or your agent doesn't get in.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Posts code on GitHub (Microsoft) Complains on linkedin about AI stealing open source code (Microsoft)

Why would the open source community do this to me???

Lol no I get it, AI is coming to devour us all, and it is just waiting until it can gets enough nourishment from code

What we really need are new OS licenses that strike the right balance.

[–] Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

How would pay per access stop scrapping everything in one go. Also it is not just open stuff they train LLM s on, they steal everything.

[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

If you turn your library into an API only (through a http server), you cant just "scrape everything" as to do anything you'd have to run an api request and these servers you send your request to will be metered.

Depends on what you're building though, but that's how I read it.

[–] Disillusionist@piefed.world 8 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I get where he's coming from... I do... but it also sounds a lot like letting the dark side of the force win. The world is just better with more talent in open source. If only there was some recourse against letting LLM barons strip mine open source for all it's worth and only leave behind ruin.

Some open source contributors are basically saints. Not everyone can be, but it still makes things look more bleak when the those fighting for the decent and good of the digital world abandon it and pick up the red sabre.

[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

I guess it's bound to happen when you gotta pay your bills, but use of AI is lowering your income from your open source work (if any).

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 hours ago

Unfortunately all open source software is just food for LLMs now. That's something we're gonna have to accept. Contribute to open source and OpenAI, Anthropic and Google will make money off your contributions.

So either we accept this, or the Odoo model kinda works if you still want to make money. It's open core, and with an enterprise license you get access to the enterprise repository as well (or maybe you have to be a Partner, I don't remember), but the enterprise codebase is not open source and not publicly available - meaning there's a lot of stuff that the LLMs shouldn't be able to learn from, but clients will still know what code is running on their servers (kinda important if you're doing custom modules to extend the upstream ones)

[–] dRLY@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 hours ago

Not a coder, so my opinion is just opinion. The frustrations presented are valid especially with the open push that AI keeps making to remove all parts of the human element to basically everything. Even beyond his points, we have been seeing such massive levels of tech literacy (and even general literacy) even before the massive LLM bubble. AI isn't "evil" or "bad" but the rush for profits over uses that actually help humanity (plenty of very real accessibility things that could be game changing if profits weren't the real reason).

Stuff like Vibe Coding and the lack of understanding old systems and why they were done certain ways means we are beyond fucked if anything happens at different levels. The capitalist profits of companies (especially large and mega corps) come from exploitation of their workers and from the communities of OSS.

The following is personal ranting.

Even just working on PCs for regular people is maddening when my younger co-workers that interact with customers we get have basically zero clue as to things many customers are asking help with. Not like any of them or myself should know everything (especially at a retail PC repair level of pay and zero training outside of "make sales"), but even things from PCs a decade ago is over their heads. One easy example off the top of my head, is just knowing that the normal SATA to USB-A adapters don't work with 3.5" HDDs due to power and they just assume the drive is dead. Hell even just knowing the general file structure of Windows has become a huge issue for both my younger peers and for the customers knowing where their shit is saved. Went from having some knowledge/understanding, to basically thinking shit is "magic" with zero concern for knowing the trick.

No one "easy tip they don't want you to know" fixes the person in the post's problems, or for regaining general tech literacy. But capitalism must go to remove the death spiral of making everything profits over people. And education can't keep being de-funded which leads to students just being "passed" in order to keep the little bits of funding. The students that would be failing should also not be treated like losers, and not make repeating classes such a big deal (or a social shame). It is better to repeat something and learn, than it is to get into "the real world" and have it much much worse (shit was/is already bad enough with people getting promotions into leadership roles that literally don't know what the shit is about/how things work).

[–] WormFood@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

tailwind is a product born out of complete ignorance for the fundamental technologies that underlay the web and why they exist the way they do. I hope tailwind's decline encourages people to learn the fundamentals

[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Huh? How?

I don't like tailwind personally, but it is just CSS classes.

When you make a website, you can sometimes end up with your own personal library of classnames (like what tailwind is).

Tailwind just goes to the extreme by making you only use classnames and never making your own library of css again.

[–] E_coli42@lemmy.world 13 points 9 hours ago

God, this post makes me so mad.

I understand that not everyone has the privilege to distribute knowledge for social good. I’m in a privileged position--my day job provides more than enough money for a dignified life, so my own code I release is almost always strong-copylefted and for genuine social good rather than survival.

Seeing so many posts thinking a proper "solution" to web scraping for AI training is closing off knowledge by default worries me. Gatekeeping code/art/knowledge shrinks the commons that made all of this possible. Nobody owes us attention, brand recognition, or monetization. Free Open Source Software exists to protect society’s freedom to study, modify, and share the tools it depends on for social good, not for monetization or attention.

I noticed OP used Micro$oft’s GitHub, notorious for mass AI crawling. You can’t rely on THE worst platform for scraping and then complain about it. Host using Forgejo or similar, and use solutions that don’t restrict user freedoms: bot filtering, rate limits, pay-per-crawl, etc.

I think the root problem is that in capitalism, markets often don’t sustainably fund public goods--but that’s a political problem--not something individual maintainers should solve by privatizing knowledge. Continue to vote for and spread leftist ideas of restructuring society to encourage funding of public goods like Free Open Source Software rather than giving up and abandoning your FOSS values.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 7 points 13 hours ago

I pray Tailwind dies. React too. And JavaScript/TypeScript while we're at it.

[–] BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.world 44 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I find it incredible, how uncharitable some of these comments here are. As an open source contributor myself, I also really don't like the fact, that my work just gets stolen and profited of by big companies without my permission.

Even the nicest, most idealist engineer still needs to be able to live from his work. I am not saying he is, but he is completely within his right to protect his work from abuse.

Free software shouldn't mean, that every company can use our code in any way, they like and open source licenses still have terms, for example copyleft licenses, like GPLv3, still require work, which is based on that code to be licensed with the same terms and appropriately credited. AI companies are clearly not abiding by these terms and aren't really prosecuted for that.

We should be angry at the companies misusing our work instead of open source devs who have had enough.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 4 points 7 hours ago

This is the best comment of the thread.

So many people are nitpicking his post or criticizing the platform that he shares it on (let's me honest, linkedIN has a much wider impact than the fediverse if something "goes corporate viral"). People deserve to be compensated for their work.

We shouldn't be mad at the devs trying to make a living, even those who have different views about what open source is. We should be banding together against the companies who's entire business model is based on theft and abuse. New anti-AI licenses specifically, techniques to poison AI data baked into every repo, class action lawsuits against companies, etc...

Once Universal Basic Income gets implemented and you don't need to be paid directly for your work to survive, then we bicker incessantly about the finer points of the real definition of open source.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 6 points 13 hours ago

I'm curious how the model of just selling your application that's GPL'd usually works out. I don't see it done often. The only one that comes to mind is OSMAnd. There's also other interesting models for funding public goods like threshold pledge systems, assurance contracts, ransom model, wall street performer protocol, etc.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

most popular oss runs on economic incentives

Citation needed.

[–] Butterphinger@lemmy.zip 17 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Right, Linux kernel development is free, philanthropic work, with zero incentive for profit, funded by IBM, Google... 🙄

Still no?

wheels out Firefox

If Google didn't foot the bill, Chrome would be your only browser, also, funded by economic incentives. If Firefox exists, there's no monopoly, which to Google, is why it exists.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours ago

One browser to own them all would have made the anti monopoly cases against Google even stronger, and it would have been broken up a decade ago.

I know US antitrust is mostly a joke, but Google has already lost multiple times, and the only question is the scope of the remedies, so this is an easy bit of guesswork.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 111 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean, the elephant in the room is the blatant licence violations orchestrated by LLM vendors. If your codebase is GPLed and serves to feed a LLM, it should extend to all the code produced by that LLM.

For decades, the FOSS community has been at each others throats about those licenses, and now that we contemplate the largest IP theft/reappropriation of all time, it's like, not big a deal. I can't tell that I'm a prolific OSS contributor, but enough to understand the sentiment: "I put code in the open to help humanity, not to make oligarchs better off with a newfound mandate to pollute".

I mean, the elephant in the room is the blatant licence violations orchestrated by LLM vendors. If your codebase is GPLed and serves to feed a LLM, it should extend to all the code produced by that LLM.

This seems so obvious to me, but this is the first time I've seen this argument in the wild.

But I guess the AI companies are basically arguing that copyright doesn't apply to them at all, so it's moot.

[–] E_coli42@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Technically the act of incorporating code into a model’s weights does not trigger GPL's redistribution clause, so they are legally in the right even though morally you shouldn't scrape copylefted code into a model that can be used to create non-copylefted code.

[–] BenjiRenji@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

So these weights don't count as "derived works" because they are not code, but can only be used to generate code (among many other things) in conjunction with an LLM architecture?

[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 1 points 8 hours ago

Well, once again, that's just my hot/IANAL take, but when those weights serve to store information in a way that can easily be extracted losslessly (check-out "model extraction attacks"), we should stop treating them as "just weights".

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

I have no idea who this guy is, but he sounds more like a shareholder/executive than an open source contributor.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 points 7 hours ago

He's authored 60 repos on Github and has forked another 95.

https://github.com/marcj?tab=repositories&q=&type=source&language=&sort=

He also founded companies and used to be CTO: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marc-j-schmidt-957875110

So I suppose he's both.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 20 hours ago

That seems like an extremely uncharitable read (to be clear, I don't know him either).

But he's not just a "contributor", I think we need a word that better describes people like him. It sounds like he's shaped his career and the software he's written, thoughtfully in the direction of open source.

He's saying the previously established way of having a career and OSS projects has been broken by the introduction of AI agents.

How are you getting "shareholder"??

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That just powers big companies more.

Hobby programmers can't mess around with anything due to the price while companies buy tools, compilers, and libraries as they like??

This reads like they just wanted an excuse about their slowly upcoming greed.

load more comments
view more: next ›