Je viens de faire un don à Meshtastic. Toi aussi, soutiens-les ! opencollective.com/meshtasti… via @opencollect

🤯BREAKING: Alibaba just proved that AI Coding isn't taking your job, it's just writing the legacy code that will keep you employed fixing it for the next decade. 🤣 Passing a coding test once is easy. Maintaining that code for 8 months without it exploding? Apparently, it’s nearly impossible for AI. Alibaba tested 18 AI agents on 100 real codebases over 233-day cycles. They didn't just look for "quick fixes"—they looked for long-term survival. The results were a bloodbath: 75% of models broke previously working code during maintenance. Only Claude Opus 4.5/4.6 maintained a >50% zero-regression rate. Every other model accumulated technical debt that compounded until the codebase collapsed. We’ve been using "snapshot" benchmarks like HumanEval that only ask "Does it work right now?" The new SWE-CI benchmark asks: "Does it still work after 8 months of evolution?" Most AI agents are "Quick-Fix Artists." They write brittle code that passes tests today but becomes a maintenance nightmare tomorrow. They aren't building software; they're building a house of cards. The narrative just got honest: Most models can write code. Almost none can maintain it.

Ready for @fosdem? Join us on Saturday evening for our usual Open Collective FOSDEM meetup. RSVP here: 👉 luma.com/p6cqbp85

Europe needs digital sovereignty, and Open Source is the most direct path to it. But it requires more contribution-based procurement. More public money must flow upstream to Open Source maintainers, not just to integrators and resellers. dri.es/funding-open-source-f…

I was having this EXACT conversation over the Christmas break. It's not just finances, but AI kills the DESIRE to contribute. The joy of OSS was the human aspect. Knowing a human on the other end needed your solution. When the consumer becomes an agent, that feedback loop is broken. If the consumer is a bot and the 'small details' are abstracted away, why would anyone want to dedicate time to something that takes so much effort when it is already not being paid for said contribution? Why would anyone want to sacrifice time on a Saturday Night to solve an issue for an OSS project? There is no reason to do so. We aren't just losing potential clients or users. We are losing the next generation of maintainers.

All my new code will be closed-source from now on. I've contributed millions of lines of carefully written OSS code over the past decade, spent thousands of hours helping other people. If you want to use my libraries (1M downloads/month) in the future, you have to pay. I made good money funneling people through my OSS and being recognized as expert in several fields. This was entirely based on HUMANS knowing and seeing me by USING and INTERACTING with my code. No humans will ever read my docs again when coding agents do it in seconds. Nobody will even know it's me who built it. Look at Tailwind: 75 million downloads/month, more popular than ever, revenue down 80%, docs traffic down 40%, 75% of engineering team laid off. Someone submitted a PR to add LLM-optimized docs and Wathan had to decline - optimizing for agents accelerates his business's death. He's being asked to build the infrastructure for his own obsolescence. Two of the most common OSS business models: - Open Core: Give away the library, sell premium once you reach critical mass (Tailwind UI, Prisma Accelerate, Supabase Cloud...) - Expertise Moat: Be THE expert in your library - consulting gigs, speaking, higher salary Tailwind just proved the first one is dying. Agents bypass the documentation funnel. They don't see your premium tier. Every project relying on docs-to-premium conversion will face the same pressure: Prisma, Drizzle, MikroORM, Strapi, and many more. The core insight: OSS monetization was always about attention. Human eyeballs on your docs, brand, expertise. That attention has literally moved into attention layers. Your docs trained the models that now make visiting you unnecessary. Human attention paid. Artificial attention doesn't. Some OSS will keep going - wealthy devs doing it for fun or education. That's not a system, that's charity. Most popular OSS runs on economic incentives. Destroy them, they stop playing. Why go closed-source? When the monetization funnel is broken, you move payment to the only point that still exists: access. OSS gave away access hoping to monetize attention downstream. Agents broke downstream. Closed-source gates access directly. The final irony: OSS trained the models now killing it. We built our own replacement. My prediction: a new marketplace emerges, built for agents. Want your agent to use Tailwind? Prisma? Pay per access. Libraries become APIs with meters. The old model: free code -> human attention -> monetization. The new model: pay at the gate or your agent doesn't get in.

Making a business on top of open source software already was near impossible. And now OSS maintainers who want to earn money are extra screwed. AI will scrape your project site, users will never visit it for documentation and will never know about your commercial product. And we're not talking about some random small library. This is the world's most used CSS framework that's growing day by day. At this point, the only thing you will be able to do in open source is upselling LLM tokens.