AI is rapidly evolving. This is a known fact and should come as no surprise. The next frontier will likely emerge in the agentic space, focused on fully working out how to make agents do the bidding of their overlords. As of early 2026, the latest trend is Agent Skills — a powerful mechanism that allows you to define a structured set of instructions within a given context or framework, controlling how an agent performs a specific set of tasks.

Bundled into this new AI-driven world that we live in is the software we use everyday. In the realm of software engineering, AI will happily rely on existing tools it has been trained on, knowing exactly how to write their syntax. This eliminates the need to research documentation or figure out how to structure a codebase. Where this becomes a problem is when those tools are open source projects that rely on user traffic to their websites to advertise commercial offerings. One such example is Tailwind CSS. Despite being widely popular, it is now facing the possibility of becoming abandonware due to an inability to sustainably fund its maintenance team.

Is this a precursor to what’s to come for Open Source Software (OSS)? Will some projects simply fade away after being abandoned by their communities?

Disclaimer: OSS doesn’t always mean free — it means the source code is open. Anyone can inspect it, modify it, redistribute it, and use it. There may be limitations depending on the license associated with the project. However, the source code remains accessible, and in most cases, you are free to do what you want with it.

The OSS dilemma

OSS collectively struggling with funding and contribution is nothing new. Some projects manage to buck this trend through specific revenue streams, but the majority rely on communities of developers coming together to make the software work. Most of this effort is time donated out of generosity, with contributors receiving very little in return. Rarely do developers make a sustainable living purely by contributing to OSS. Instead, most treat it as a hobby — something done in the evenings or on weekends, while juggling regular jobs and other commitments. While the cause is noble and honourable, it’s not going to pay the bills.

Fundamentally and in principle, OSS is great. It allows consumers to access software that would otherwise be unavailable to them. You need only look at your own device to see how many products you use every day that you didn’t directly pay for. For me, as a macOS user, this includes applications such as:

• Homebrew
• Docker/Colima
• Golang
• Hugo (website framework)
• Kind (Kubernetes sandpit)
• Terraform
• Pike (AWS IAM policy writer)
• Python
• Drawio
• Multipass (Local VM runner)
• Obsidian (Note taking app)
• Rectangle (Screen management)
• VS code

From this list, some products have commercial offerings. Docker, for example, was originally completely open source but later began commercialising certain components, such as Docker Desktop. You can still run Docker “for free” so long as you use an alternative runtime like Colima.

This is where the OSS dilemma emerges. On one hand, we have access to an incredible suite of tools. On the other, those who maintain and contribute to these tools receive little in return beyond personal satisfaction and a sense of community. Participation alone, however meaningful, does not translate into long-term sustainability.

Tailwind CSS’ business model

To work around the broader OSS funding dilemma, companies and maintainers are often forced to get creative. In the case of Tailwind CSS, revenue is primarily driven through:

• Sponsorships
• A premium product (Tailwind Plus)

Most OSS projects adopt a similar approach, offering paid options that unlock additional features or convenience. From the earlier list, Docker offers Docker Desktop, Terraform has been steadily moving toward more restrictive free-tier options following HashiCorp’s acquisition by IBM, and both Obsidian and Rectangle provide premium tiers that unlock extra functionality.

Despite these offerings, returning to the earlier point about AI not needing—or caring about—these monetisation mechanisms, the companies behind such tools can still struggle. In December 2025, Tailwind CSS laid off 75% of its engineering team. That figure sounds dramatic, but it’s worth remembering that it represents a percentage rather than an absolute number. In practice, this reportedly amounted to three engineers losing their jobs.

At face value, this may not seem groundbreaking. However, consider how much reliance we place on these tools. Without OSS, we would be nowhere near as technologically advanced as we are today, and the digital age would look markedly different.

An AI tool is here to get a job done. Whatever prompt it is given, it will strive to achieve that goal using the information that it has available. If the tool that it relies on works, and the pattern is repeatable rather than esoteric, it becomes trivially easy for an AI model to generate the code you need—without ever engaging with the ecosystem that sustains it.

When adoption doesn’t equal growth

As AI becomes a prominent part of the software creation process, it bypasses the traditional systems and mechanisms that once drove revenue. Without those pathways, some projects may simply be unsustainable and be unable to continue. This creates a strange phenomenon: adoption without growth. In most other contexts, this would be unheard of. Consider a traditional business selling cosmetics. The products are a hit — widely popular among consumers — and the business expands accordingly. Revenue climbs, the company scales, and founders and executives are well compensated as the organisation thrives. This is what we typically expect when a product succeeds. Open source breaks this assumption. Consumers often expect that a product they obtained for free will simply continue to exist. They can continue to use it, without having to pay for it, and even profit from it. This is a deeply polarising aspect of OSS. Software that was freely obtained is used to generate revenue — sometimes significant revenue — while the project enabling that success quietly struggles to survive.

In what logical sense is that fair? Getting something for nothing, using it for personal or commercial gain, and continuing to expect it to persist indefinitely? It feels (and is) unreasonable when examined closely. Yet this is exactly the dynamic at play — and one that AI now accelerates rather than alleviates.

Not an isolated issue

Any OSS project that relies on human interaction with its resources to continue to operate may eventually face the same fate. Tailwind CSS is simply the catalyst. As AI continues to abstract users away from documentation, communities, and project ecosystems, more OSS projects may struggle to sustain themselves and ultimately fold.

This should be a consideration for how we use OSS in the future. Some projects may already be in trouble without any publicity. It could be something that is happening behind the scenes. What is the most concerning here is that OSS is used in many different capacities. It is used at an individual level, at a small business level, and extends all the way to the largest corporations — often using the exact same tools. Yet corporations, collectively, are unlikely to donate back to these projects. They have little incentive to. If the product is on offer for free, why would they? Imagine how that conversation would go with the financial team when it came time to raise a purchase order. It affects the bottom line, and if there is anything organisations always need more of, it’s money!

Turning point and the future of OSS

Tailwind CSS faces an uncertain future. Further reports are yet to emerge on how it is tracking financially or what its future holds. Sources suggest that some larger corporations and individuals who rely on Tailwind CSS have stepped forward to offer donations. However, there are concerns about how much is actually being raised and whether it is sufficient to pull Tailwind out of its current financial rut. Time will tell how it all plays out — and whether the internet will eventually need another CSS framework in the future when doing code refactors. Hopefully, one that can monetise itself effectively and remain operational.

So what does this mean for the future of OSS? It should serve as a warning. Not all projects are killing it, and some maintenance teams may have a heavier dependency on those projects than others. We all need to eat. Skilled software engineers are in demand — not those who simply “vibe code”, but the actual ones who nowadays leverage AI to make their code better and tackle their workload efficiently.

OSS will continue to be as it was. In the event that a maintainer of a major project is unable to continue, the project either finds another one or it stops being supported. It’s happened before, and it will happen again. A recent example of this is the Ingress NGINX project. As the saying goes for the World of Warcraft geeks — No king rules forever.

Cover image by Artlist.io