I'm not sure I see it the same way. Maintaining open-source software requires time. There is an opportunity cost, and people (unfortunately) need to feed their

I'm not sure I see it the same way. Maintaining open-source software requires time. There is an opportunity cost, and people (unfortunately) need to feed their families, pay their rent, and so on. The problem here is that the developer faces a choice: continue working on a piece of software that makes things better for thousands (or tens of thousands) of companies and individuals, or put that time towards something that benefits him and his family directly and ensures that they can continue to survive and thrive in a capital-based society. If he moved libjpeg-turbo to paid software (not that I expect that's possible) then I'm sure a lot of companies would pay for it, and a lot of open-source projects (or smaller companies) would be forced to stop using it. That's not good for anyone (except the developer). I think the thing to consider is this: if everyone who's ever saved at least two dollars on time, bandwidth, CPU power consumption, cloud compute costs, or any other factor gave him one of those dollars, he'd be set for life. He could make libjpeg-turbo his full-time job indefinitely. He's not asking for a six-figure salary, but it's difficult to look at a project that you're spending time and effort on that's saving other people such huge amounts of money and compare that to the meagre amounts anyone is willing to contribute for it and to consider that a worthwhile tradeoff. In the end, he's making that choice: he's going to spend time doing something else. He doesn't come across as feeling entitled (his argument that open-source software should be more funded/appreciated than it is doesn't seem to be in debate), he's just faced with a choice and he's letting people know ahead of time what choice he made.