Do you really think Saylor is arguing for no software maintenance?
Discussion
If ur a software as a service provider, you make $$$ from your licensees and customers via “maintenance” after the initial sale and install is done, so they like that. Maintenance is recurring (MRR/ARR) whereby upgrades, not so much.
There are no software as a service providers here. The devs don’t make money or charge people for using the software.
The meaning of software maintenance is different in this context. It means the work that you have to do to keep the software running on newer operating systems.
For example, let’s say that Apple upgrades their MacOS operating system. There may be changes that the devs must make to the core software to keep it running on the newer Macs.
Saylor is not arguing that devs stop software maintenance. If software maintenance stopped, bitcoin would die within 10 years.
Saylor seems to be arguing that new features should be added to L2s to avoid breaking the core L1 network.
Saylor said he is creating a significant bitcoin software development arm within MicroStrategy. His company has already been in the SaaS business. It would be within his wheelhouse to provide bitcoin related SaaS to big banks and financial firms.
Are you saying that you believe Saylor wants to stop work on bitcoin core so that he can sell an alternative core software created by him?
I’ll say this with what is known thus far, I believe Saylor cock blocking FOSS devs working on Bitcoin from getting $$$ is a strategic business move typically used against competition. Imagine yourself to be Saylor… why would you have a back channel conversation with a huge prospective donor to dissuade them from donating to an organization that supports a particular, niche, small subset of software developers?