Chess has always had this dichotomy over free/paid services. (a bit not unlike programming tools).
I love lichess.org but make no mistake: without the dedication of one talented Scala programmer willing to underpay themselves that site would not exist.
Commercial sites can provide more services and offer more opportunities to chess professionals simply due to the funding model.
Disclaimer: I've played over 100k online chess games since 1992. Starting with original ICS (client was on Xwindows) before ICS/FICS split drama, then chessbase.com, then chess.com and now lichess.org. I slightly prefer lichess but play on chess.com as well.
Open source in general wouldn't exist without lots of people who contribute and underpay themselves for it, but I'm not sure what I'm not supposed to be making a mistake about? Can you clarify?
I meant to say that lichess.org is a bit of an outlier for a great service based on FOSS principles and a donation model.
There are many chessplayers who think lichess > chess because it is absolutely free. That is not a sufficient condition for greatness. Having a paid model is not a horrible thing.
It is not given that a nice FOSS project is sustainable. There are plenty of free projects which went nowhere.
Only a handful FOSS projects can support themselves (vue, lichess and very few others).
Even worse, there are many formerly great FOSS projects half-abandonded when the original creator decided to get a "real job". That is what worries me with lichess - the bus factor of one.
Yes I have lichess repo on my computer but that is not sufficient.
As I have grown older I've come to appreciate the value of paying for things well made.