My apologies - you’re correct. I didn’t mean that as “you should never expect anyone to have contributed code for free/the pleasure/for the puzzle solving aspect”. I do it all of the time. I meant - it’s unfair to consider that because this labor “fell from the sky”, you should just accept it - and as others have said, in the case of projects that become popular, that the burden should just automatically fall on the shoulders of someone who happened to share code “for free”. If/when someone ends up becoming responsible for work they hadn’t necessarily signed up for (who signs up for burnout?) - it’s ok/necessary/mandatory to see how everyone (and or Nvidia/Google/OpenAI etc) can, like, help. My insistence is on the opt-out nature of this so that people who would be ok being compensated don't have to beg. Consider how the xz malware situation happened [0]. Or the header & question 8 from the FAQ for PocketBase [1]. [0] x.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 [1] pocketbase.io/faq/

Free software and open source software are not the same. AGPLv3 is not an open source license, it is the strongest copyleft free software license available at this point in time. gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-t….... gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html And it's hard to disagree with the clueless guy when what he says is happening keeps happening. twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129… twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704… trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4

They have some fire tweets, especially when people say they write things from scratch or boast about how much money they make with ffmpeg wrappers x.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 x.com/FFmpeg/status/1856078171017281691 x.com/FFmpeg/status/1950227075576823817 Oh, and here's one making fun of HN comments. Hi ffmpeg :) x.com/FFmpeg/status/1947076489880486131