In September 2014, I published the first version of tarteaucitron.js on GitHub. The project addressed a fairly simple need: managing consent for cookies and third-party services without depending on a proprietary solution.
Twelve years later, tarteaucitron.js is used on a large number of websites, by individuals, associations, public organizations, agencies and businesses. Some companies have even built commercial services around the project.
That is exactly what I wanted when I released the code under the MIT license. I wanted it to be used, adapted, shared and integrated into as many websites as possible.
But after twelve years, I also see a significant gap between the value created by an open source project and what reaches the people who maintain it.
€4,944 in donations
Between 2023 and early 2026, I offered the possibility of supporting tarteaucitron.js through GitHub Sponsors. During that period, the project received €4,939 in sponsorships, plus a direct donation of €5.
That makes €4,944 in total, before any deductions.
Most of that amount came from two or three sponsors who contributed every month. I sincerely thank them. Their support mattered, and I certainly do not want these figures to diminish their generosity.
But compared with the age of the project, its adoption and the maintenance work involved, the amount remains modest. It is not a business model capable of sustainably funding the development of a library used at scale.
However, that figure tells only part of the story. Open source has brought me much more than those donations.
Fortunately, there is tarteaucitron.io
I also develop tarteaucitron.io, a commercial service built around the same project. It provides additional features, automation and services for people who do not want to manage every technical aspect of the integration themselves.
This business is profitable. I want to make that clear, because presenting €4,944 in donations as the total revenue generated by tarteaucitron.js would be misleading.
The Pro version funds my business and allows me to keep spending time on the open source version. Without this model, I probably could not maintain the project under the same conditions.
There is therefore an economic return from open source, but it is indirect. I am not paid simply because thousands of websites use the library for free. I earn revenue because some users choose an additional commercial service.
It is a balance I accept and intend to preserve.
A free library should be usable commercially
The MIT license allows the code to be reused, modified and redistributed, including in commercial products and services, provided its license conditions are respected.
Agencies can therefore install tarteaucitron.js for their clients and charge for that work. Software vendors can integrate it into their products. Consultants can sell audits, configuration services and custom development.
I have no problem with that. Quite the opposite: I am proud to see companies earning a living with a tool I originally started developing on my own, and which has since benefited from the work of several contributors.
Those companies also help distribute the project. They promote an open source solution developed in France and make it possible for more websites to use it.
Some competitors have even criticized me for maintaining a free version, arguing that a fully SaaS-based solution would have been preferable for the market. I do not share that view.
Widespread adoption of tarteaucitron.js is not a side effect of my commercial business. It is the original purpose of the project.
Contributing does not necessarily mean donating money
The problem is not that companies use tarteaucitron.js for free or sell services built around it. They have every right to do so.
What surprises me more is the lack of feedback from some organizations that derive real commercial value from it.
A contribution can take many forms: fixing a bug, improving documentation, providing a translation, testing a release, reporting an issue with useful technical details or participating in a new feature.
I have two excellent contributors who work on accessibility. They bring their expertise to the project, improve the code and can then sell that expertise to their own clients.
To me, that is an excellent example of how open source should work. The project improves, users benefit and contributors can build professional value from their work.
Nobody has to work for others for free. Sometimes, shared interests are enough.
Free support has its limits
On the other hand, I sometimes receive a message from a large company that urgently needs a new advertising tracker added to tarteaucitron.js.
The campaign is about to launch, the integration is urgent and the service needs to work immediately. The request feels more like a priority support ticket than an open source contribution.
If I take the time to add the service, test it and publish an update, the response sometimes amounts to a simple “OK thanks” by email.
The issue is not the amount contributed. A financial contribution is not always necessary. What bothers me is the assumption that a maintainer’s time is a resource available on demand.
A free software library costs nothing to use. That does not mean its maintainer is obliged to provide free, urgent development work whenever a business needs something.
There is also a difference between a feature request that could benefit the whole community and a specific service required to meet an immediate commercial deadline.
Maintenance never really stops
I publish a new version of tarteaucitron.js roughly once a month. Depending on the planned changes, this generally represents between one and three days of work.
I need to review requests, modify the code, verify integrations, handle potential regressions, update services and prepare the release.
Consent management also evolves with browsers, advertising platforms, regulatory requirements and the technical behavior of third-party services.
Security adds another layer of work. Vulnerability reports are necessary, and I support responsible disclosure. They help improve software and protect its users.
But every report requires effort: understanding the issue, identifying affected versions, developing a fix, testing it and publishing an update.
CVEs and security alerts make this work more visible, but they also increase pressure on maintainers. Fast fixes are expected, even when a project is maintained by a single person with limited available time.
The code is public, but the hours required to maintain it are not free.
Artificial intelligence is changing the balance too
AI tools capable of generating and modifying code are making open source libraries more accessible.
Someone who might previously have chosen a commercial solution to avoid a technical integration can now use an AI assistant to install and configure the free version.
I can see this happening with tarteaucitron.js. The open source version is becoming easier to use, including for people who are not developers.
That is good news for the adoption of the project. It is also a development that can reduce some of the demand for the commercial features and services that fund its maintenance.
There is a paradox here: tools that make free software easier to use can also weaken the business models supporting some free software projects.
I have no intention of artificially restricting the open source version to compensate for this change. That would contradict the reason I created tarteaucitron.js in the first place.
But commercial services will probably need to keep evolving to provide genuine value beyond what a basic technical integration can offer.
The real issue is reciprocity
I do not believe every user of open source software should contribute financially. That would undermine part of the value of the model.
Nor do I believe a company has a moral obligation to fund every project whose code it uses. Software dependencies are numerous, and circumstances vary considerably.
However, when a company directly earns revenue from a project, regularly asks for support or requests specific development work, some form of reciprocity seems reasonable to me.
It can fund an improvement, contribute code, improve documentation, test new versions or simply acknowledge the work publicly.
And sometimes, a genuine thank-you is already appreciated. Not an automatic acknowledgment after an urgent request, but recognition that real people exist behind a GitHub repository.
I do not want to turn tarteaucitron.js into a closed service or make contributions a condition of using it. I will continue publishing the code and accepting contributions from the community.
After twelve years, I remain convinced that this is the right choice.
Open source doesn’t pay, but it creates enormous value
The title of this article is deliberately a little exaggerated. Open source can absolutely help build a profitable business. tarteaucitron.io is a concrete example.
But donations alone rarely cover the work required to maintain a widely used project. And the economic benefits of open source are not always shared with the people who keep it running.
This issue extends far beyond tarteaucitron.js. Many companies depend on free software maintained by small teams, sometimes by a single person, without necessarily knowing the conditions under which that work is performed.
I am not asking for every use to result in a payment. I simply hope that more attention will be given to maintenance, contributions and the human time that makes this software possible.
The freedom to use software should not make us forget the people who maintain it.
