You pointed out three major issues, and I'd like to try to address them, because I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I also,

> love open source!

I don't have any real solutions, but I want to express my perspective anyway.

> Somebody has to pay the cost of maintaining a project.

Yes. The beauty of free software is that it does not have to be you. That being said, it tends to be you anyway, doesn't it? The same can be said of any side-project. The beauty is that you didn't lay claim to that responsibility. Since you clearly don't have the time, and rightfully so, you have lessened your contribution, or even abandoned the side project. The beauty of this is that you allowed everyone else the freedom necessary to take over. Anyone can fork free software if they so desire. The same cannot be said of proprietary/closed-source software. I count this as a win for free software, not a problem.

> when we try to work together, and open source has little structure for dealing with these problems

Like Richard Stallman, I am a stickler for words. The reason I (and Stallman) are pedantic in this case, is that I (as he) want to emphasize the real issue: Liberty. For that reason, I agree with him that "Open Source" is a poor representation of "Free Software". Why do I bring this up now? You mention structure. Freedom does not create structure; and yet, the culture that encompasses free software is very organized. That organization, however, is very different from the culture of a business. Here are a few key differences:

* No one is obligated to work on this.
* No one is paid to be in charge.

Unlike a traditional business with employees and management, nothing is imposed. The upside is that free software can evolve in ways the managers and employees either would not dream up, or simply do not have the resources or time to implement. The catch is that unless someone wants to actually do it, and that someone has the time and skill, that innovation simply will not come to fruition. Businesses have the one thing that free software is missing. Almost as a pun on its name, it has no direct monetary value.

> projects go open source just for the "warm fuzzies"

> call it for what it is: charity.

This is far and wide the perspective any business has on free software. This, I believe, is the root of the problem. We as software engineers need money. As much as some of us might enjoy late nights working on projects for free, everyone who lives a full life needs an income.

Looking through the lens of impossible optimism, I see a world where companies can accept a different business model:

When a business needs a piece of software, they hire developers to create it. The devs get paid, and the business gets what they needed. The key difference in this alternate reality is that the business does not consider software (or any other "intellectual property") as a physical commodity. The software is instead, open, and free. Anyone can use, adapt, repair, etc. the software that was created.

The root fallacy is to equate software (or any digital property) to commodities. Businesses tend to get the notion that if they do not hold onto their property, they are giving it away. Ford does not build a car to give away; that would be as detrimental as theft! In this situation, Ford is out a car. The difference that makes software, etc. unique, is that you can give it away without losing it. If more than one related project is free software, both projects benefit, and even more value comes out of what prima facie is mere charity. That is why I firmly agree:

> I think it's a net win for society, even if there are big problems we still need to solve.