Yep. I recall the blog post by InfluxData on monetisation/sustainability and that there's very few options available for an open source software to become self-sustainable, and even fewer working ones. Influx went with the open core route, removing features from the open source version, which kind of killed it.

https://www.influxdata.com/blog/update-on-influxdb-clusterin...

Not enough for what? Paying expenses? Or are you expecting that open source contributions are to be paid at developer rates, and that one should contribute only as much time as is adequately paid?

I thought open source meant that everyone was volunteering by default, just writing the features they'd enjoy to have for themselves, and that sponsorship of development time is not the norm aside from hugely important projects (like bigcorps sponsoring kernel development, but also making billions by launching Android that makes extensive use of this kernel) or projects where the sponsor has a commercial interest. Donations are typically for raising money for things like hosting the website and download bandwidth fees.

Yes, I am expecting exactly that, many developers want to try to make a living from open source.

GPL was never about doing charity.

> GPL was never about doing charity.

Adopting GPL used to be a philosophical mindset consciously chosen (as opposed to freeware), and required some level of zealotry. Now, it's just a means to an end / pragmatics / a tool in the "growth hacking" toolbox because "everyone knows" having an open source project gives it an edge over closed-source equivalents on adoption.

IMO, it's not that open source developers have to earn a living (which they always have since the beginning), but that developers who want to earn a living in any way have started adopting open source by necessity. I'm no purist, regardless of motivation, the more open source projects there are, the better it is for everyone. For once the source is out: it is out.