> I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that unpaid labor where the other side is profiting is definitely bad. That is definitely not always true. And regard

> I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that unpaid labor where the other side is profiting is definitely bad. That is definitely not always true. And regardless, creation of the software itself is labor. It’s not a great idea to claim all unpaid labor is bad when the author explicitly chooses to forego payment for writing the software, and also turn around and say you’re only talking about a fuzzy gray line called change requests. If profiting from someone else's labor without paying is bad, then why focus on change requests? Most companies who profit from OSS aren't asking for changes, but are making money. > it’s implied that the changes should be free No, I didn’t mean that the license implies changes should be free. I just mean that the license doesn’t help setup expectations, and the author is the one who both controls the license and the expectations. The main issue here is expectations. I see and appreciate your goals here, it’s applaudable to vouch for people who should be getting paid. What I don’t see is a clear and strong argument for why this shouldn’t be handled by market forces - why companies should pay without being asked, how much they should pay, and why devs shouldn’t simply charge for change requests and/or the software, if payment is what they seek.