> they had likely invested considerable time at least using, if not more.
I think your choice of the verb "invest" implies a highly flawed mindset about the incentive structure of open source.
A lot of open source consumers have a mindset that by using someone's open source project you're giving them something or doing them some kind of favor. "Hey, I'm investing in your project!" You aren't.
From a maintainer's perspective, simply using a project is likely either a zero or net negative. You are not investing your time, you are using their code. You may be asking questions which consume their time. You may be filing bugs which are on code paths they personally don't hit and fixing those uses up their time. For open source projects that pay for hosting things like their repo and issue tracker, you're consuming network resources.
We have a finite time on Earth, and supporting users is time the maintainer cannot spend with their friends and family, relaxing on a beach, taking a stroll, etc.
A consumer of an open source project may cancel out that drain by offering other things in return: popularity, kind words, the feeling that the maintainer has created something that benefits other humans. Filing issues can help a maintainer fix bugs and feel good about the improved quality of their code. Pull requests can add functionality they want.
But none of that is a given and often does not happen.
In my open source projects, I have certainly receive kind words, but also many angry words in bug reports. I've had demands to spend huge amounts of time making sweeping changes, pull requests that needed be basically be rewritten, the feeling that I'm letting people down by not replying to issues quickly enough, etc.
I believe the right mental model is that if you use someone's open source project, you are in their debt by default. They have used their labor to create an artifact that provides clear material value to you. They did work. You got personal value. They clearly owe you absolutely nothing and you reasonably owe them something approaching the material value you get from their code.
This doesn't mean you need to pay them, but it should inform how you interact with them. Filing issues and sending pull requests may pay off that debt, but even then it is not a given that every issue and PR is a net help to them. Maintaining an open source project can be gratifying, but it can also be hugely draining. It would be less so if consumers were more sensitive to that fact.
I think your choice of the verb "invest" implies a highly flawed mindset about the incentive structure of open source.
A lot of open source consumers have a mindset that by using someone's open source project you're giving them something or doing them some kind of favor. "Hey, I'm investing in your project!" You aren't.
From a maintainer's perspective, simply using a project is likely either a zero or net negative. You are not investing your time, you are using their code. You may be asking questions which consume their time. You may be filing bugs which are on code paths they personally don't hit and fixing those uses up their time. For open source projects that pay for hosting things like their repo and issue tracker, you're consuming network resources.
We have a finite time on Earth, and supporting users is time the maintainer cannot spend with their friends and family, relaxing on a beach, taking a stroll, etc.
A consumer of an open source project may cancel out that drain by offering other things in return: popularity, kind words, the feeling that the maintainer has created something that benefits other humans. Filing issues can help a maintainer fix bugs and feel good about the improved quality of their code. Pull requests can add functionality they want.
But none of that is a given and often does not happen.
In my open source projects, I have certainly receive kind words, but also many angry words in bug reports. I've had demands to spend huge amounts of time making sweeping changes, pull requests that needed be basically be rewritten, the feeling that I'm letting people down by not replying to issues quickly enough, etc.
I believe the right mental model is that if you use someone's open source project, you are in their debt by default. They have used their labor to create an artifact that provides clear material value to you. They did work. You got personal value. They clearly owe you absolutely nothing and you reasonably owe them something approaching the material value you get from their code.
This doesn't mean you need to pay them, but it should inform how you interact with them. Filing issues and sending pull requests may pay off that debt, but even then it is not a given that every issue and PR is a net help to them. Maintaining an open source project can be gratifying, but it can also be hugely draining. It would be less so if consumers were more sensitive to that fact.