- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.



Open source should not be about making money. If you start an open source project with the idea that some time in the future you’ll make money, then it’s already a lost cause. I’m with Stallman on this, even though I despise him as a person.
Blender is an example of open source that “makes money”, even though it’s not for profit. They get donations and the devs get paid a living wage. Nobody in the Blender foundation is making a killing, but if they couldn’t bring in funds to sustain it, Blender would wither away.
Stallman would disagree with you, I believe. The Free Software Moment has never been about not making money, it’s about liberty with the software you use. Free as in freedom, not free as in beer; free as in libre, not free as in gratis.
Quote from FSF:
deleted by creator
Developers need to eat, pay rent, etc.
As Stallman said: " it’s free as in Free speech not as in Free beer".
Money in FOSS keeps projects going.
But as another said: in the case of LLM agents, monetisation is a way to get the automated skimming out of their lives. It eats resources, time, causes havoc on hosts…
Money-making is an orthogonal issue. LLMs subvert engagement with open source projects, which is important for their health whether or not there’s anyone trying to monetize that engagement.
It’s not an orthogonal issue when it is literally the subject of the article that this comment section is about.
The author of the original post is whining that open-core business models are dead because they have no conversion pipeline. Whether or not you agree with them, you can’t claim that money-making is not a relevant topic for discussion.
Ah, the “only closed source should make money but I will demand opensource compete with it” take. Love it.
Then you should have no problem forking these repos and continue maintaining them for free.
Thank you for your service.
What a ridiculous response.
They said don’t start an open source project with the idea of making money, why would you suggest they should personally take over all of those projects that were started with the idea of making money?
What?
How about they just don’t use them when they become proprietary? They aren’t popular projects because their devs are extra brilliant or special, it’s because they’re free (libre), and the moment you restrict that freedom you lose the interest of a significant portion of the user base.