While I think I understand most of his points, I do not think that any of the intents should be relevant to software - like at all. I mean, I am using and fixi

While I think I understand most of his points, I do not think that any of the intents should be relevant to software - like at all. I mean, I am using and fixing GNU/linux/libre/open software since I was a child and I contribute to a lot of projects... But every time I see a project where the author didn't have time to fix an issue, it's the same story. Project gets abandoned due to lack of free time, hardfork, maybe with much much luck a softfork, then months of intent of "industrial" programming. Lack of time. Repeat. This is happening everywhere and the reason why many pivots of intents across the operating system sometimes take multiple years, just see gtk3, gtk4, wayland, QT mobile (oh boi!) and others... If the intent changes, the current ecosystem is not able to pivot. And I think the reason is a different one. The Free Software Foundation are something like a churchal institution in my opinion. They spread belief, they convert other believers to their cause and if they don't they try to make an argument why it's the better way to believe. But much like the church with their people in it, that concept is not sustainable anyhow. Most of the software I use daily (and I am very grateful for) gets shit from the FSF or any other ecosystem. Some software is established, others isn't...but they help my productivity and make me not happy, but efficient and more "industrial" in what I can achieve with them as tools. The late movement of patreon, onlyfans and others to find a sustainable ecosystem for creators of content still isn't actually sustainable. All the videos that reach only a minority and are still helpful can't be funded with it, so they actually just reflect the same problem: they aren't sustainable, because they are much like the FSF unaware of what's not popular. Patreon's CEO drives probably a shiny car and has a house while many educational video creators (that he at some point probably relied on) don't get shit for their creations. I think that we have to find a balanced funding model, that is somewhat similar to the initial purpose of taxes when they were invented. But it has to be adaptive to the changing nature of the economics of the system, and should be built in a way that those fees are distributed sustainably, and that people can do what they want, in their paid time, similar to how most people in the basic income movement would argue with its advantages. It could maybe be solved with a fancy blockchain, and maybe different, I dunno - as long as it's not a financial institution that calculates in business models or a fixed percentage, and as long as it has its people in their focus rather than themselves.