A lot of OSS burnout comes from a broken assumption: that publishing code creates an obligation.

Historically, open source meant "here's code, use it if it helps, fix it if it breaks." No support contracts, no timelines, no moral duty. GitHub-era norms quietly inverted that into unpaid service work, with entitlement enforced socially ("be nice", "maintainers owe users").

Intrinsic motivation is the only sustainable fuel here. Once you start optimizing for users, stars, adoption, or goodwill, pressure accumulates and burnout is inevitable. When you build purely because the work itself is satisfying, stopping is always allowed, and that's what keeps projects healthy.

Hard boundaries aren't hostility; they're corrective. Fewer projects would exist if more maintainers adopted them, but the ones that remain would be stronger, and companies would be forced to fund or own their forks honestly.

Open source doesn't need more friendliness. It needs less obligation