There are many opinions about it, but I think something paid can be called open source. Open source is about collaboration and the power of a community that works together. However, open-source projects rely primarily on volunteers, but not everybody can afford to work for free due to their situation, debt, or family responsibilities. Open-source projects require a lot of work, especially when the project gets bigger and serves more people. Relying only on volunteer work can make these projects unsustainable. At some point, the volunteers can’t continue to invest the required time and effort in maintaining a project that is getting bigger and needs more work. In some cases, volunteers feel overwhelmed and abandon the project. If we want open-source resources to stay, we need to find a viable, sustainable way of developing, using, and paying for open source, or it might not be here tomorrow. Donating to support open source projects is a way to help these projects to survive.
I love this view point and Dr. Kimmons has brought this up as well, but we often forget that there are several people behind the scenes working on these open sources, yet we all have to make a living. Open is definitely something that needs to be sustainable and we have to find a balance somehow.
A great article. The reality is that is is so complicated. For me the reality is that open does not mean free or not paid. Personally I consider libraries as "open" but the reality is that somebody paid for the stuff their the designated users just get to use it in an open manner. So in the end the reality is paid or free it can still be open in some way.
I love your point here. The end user often doesn't think about the cost behind open source. Though, in a perfect world, we would be able to provide all content to everyone for free, we certainly don't live in that world. There needs to be ongoing discussion about how to provide great resources to everyone at the lowest cost possible.