If one of your primary motivations for working on FOSS is to improve the world (which for many of us is the case), then it's very easy to feel an obligation to un-break Amazon because it is a quick way to improve the world for millions of people.

That, on its own, is fine. It brings you satisfaction rather than financial support. What starts being fishy is when companies like Amazon who can readily afford to offer financial support instead rely on and exploit that sense of obligation to get work done for free.

I realise this sounds whiny and that's not the point. The point is that by withholding FOSS contributors financial support, these companies are creating an environment in which the best and most dedicated contributors run the risk of burning themselves out, making everyone worse for it.

I would love to have created something that was so critical it could break amazon. That sounds like a ticket to $5k a day consulting gigs

From the article:

> It’s still not clear that companies would be interested in such a contract. When Stenberg asked the company that needed him to fly to a different country to troubleshoot their problem to pay for one, they refused.

Well that is indeed what I said, you just have to get used to telling people that. That's the big problem. That's the reason this thread on HN exists. People trying to figure out the right path, how to ask for money on their little OSS projects, etc.

Mike Monteiro's version runs slightly longer:

https://invidio.us/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U

(Fuck you, pay me.)