I've published and contributed to a great deal of open source software, much of it successful. I have also published a great deal of open source software, much

I've published and contributed to a great deal of open source software, much of it successful. I have also published a great deal of open source software, much of it successful, and some of it almost universally used. Unfortunately, that does absolutely nothing to bolster either of our arguments. If you published an essay containing controversial opinions, would you demand that it be immune to criticism on the basis that you're giving it away for free You asked for: "I want some evidence that I'm going to be gaining something". If we try to apply that to your analogy, why is it the author's responsibility to not only produce the work, document the work, but then also supply their own literary criticism so that you can decide if the work is worthwhile, all before the essay is completed and ready for publication? Open source developers regularly produce software just because they want to, and feel no impetus or desire to convince you of anything. That's not, as you put it, some sort of "narcissistic" behavior, but rather a desire to simply share without additional burden or demands by others.