That’s an unnecessary issue regarding someone’s income, which some projects don’t even have.
its kind of this weird game of politics they end up needing to play
They don’t need to.
It’s a supply & demand issue: if a maintainer finds the terms unacceptable and goes “fuck you, pay us right, lower your expectations, or piss off” then what is the funder going to do?
Let the software rot?
They either want the software or they don’t, and it’s not going to be cheaper to develop that software in a non-open setting.
They’ll have to reconcile terms or find another maintainer who’ll work for less in a market where their skills are highly valued.
Objective facts of reality are unrelated to the reasonability of business arrangements people work out to address those facts.
This is a negotiation skills issue to address with the business partner, not with immutable, objective reality.
It’s a free world: anyone is free to express truths about security defects at any time, and no one owes anyone anything on the timing of those disclosures.
That’s an unnecessary issue regarding someone’s income, which some projects don’t even have.
They don’t need to. It’s a supply & demand issue: if a maintainer finds the terms unacceptable and goes “fuck you, pay us right, lower your expectations, or piss off” then what is the funder going to do? Let the software rot? They either want the software or they don’t, and it’s not going to be cheaper to develop that software in a non-open setting. They’ll have to reconcile terms or find another maintainer who’ll work for less in a market where their skills are highly valued.
Objective facts of reality are unrelated to the reasonability of business arrangements people work out to address those facts. This is a negotiation skills issue to address with the business partner, not with immutable, objective reality.
It’s a free world: anyone is free to express truths about security defects at any time, and no one owes anyone anything on the timing of those disclosures.