> Are you not implying below, with your words, that working exclusively on open source cannot bring money?

No I am implying that it in itself does not generate money because it is given away freely. Open source can draw donations but that is not part of a transaction and the source of that money is from incentivized labor.

> You seem to imply that open source is incompatible with making money. You seem to believe that if someone is making money they are not doing "exclusively open source" but something else in addition to open source.

Usually yes but not necessarily. They may exclusively do open source but then in this case they must be supported by some kind of monetary source. That monetary source will be a for profit incentive. For example: donations. Donation money must be generated by for profit ventures. Or salary money paid by companies for employees to work on open source. That salary money is generated from for profit ventures.

> Money spent on coffee comes from non-coffee places, mostly. Does that mean one cannot make money exclusively selling coffee?

Dude. You’re missing the point and making a wrong analogy. It is not about where the money comes from but whether a transaction occurred. When you sell coffee you make a transaction. When you give away software… no transaction occurs. You lose time effort and money for nothing in return. Thus the effort must logically be supported by something else. I am exclusively talking about a logistical issue with a logistical consequence. That’s it.

> That I can agree with. It is the exaggeration and dogmatism that is untrue.

Where did I exaggerate or dogmatize anything? I am talking about a logistical reality and you’re getting emotionally worked up over it. Don’t fucking accuse me of shit I didn’t do.