For example, Harry’s, a business that presented itself as an alternative to the “big name” “overpriced” razor brands that dominate the market, being bought out by one of those big name brands. I don’t think the buyout actually happened (FTC problems), but I would call that a sellout rather than a sell.
This wordle thing is a sell, and I’d do it in a heartbeat.
As regards the OP, I think the closest thing to a sellout might be the ‘journalist’ writing the story, and selling out their own integrity by creating a sensational headline to get clicks on an otherwise mundane story about a business transaction. As regards musicians, I don’t think many ever said, “I’m poor working class and I love it!” so much as “I’m poor working class and unashamed of that”. Of course they were in it for the money and fame. An obvious exception would be if Pepsi or Coca Cola got Neil Young to do an ad.
And Harry’s. That hurt my heart.
And hells yeah, if someone wanted to buy something I had created I’d take their money.
There’s an intriguing listing for jobs with Children’s Health Defense, RFK Jr.'s antivax outfit, which has recently benefited from a big infusion of cash from donors/members. They’re looking for “science writers”.
I’m sure I could digest the material they glom onto, write competent and entertaining articles and make extra bucks.
It would however be a sellout on a par with being Alex Jones’ p.r. director.
The only question would be…is 20 year equivalent of my a fair market value for it? If I think it’s a good deal, then certainly I would. If not…not. I don’t really consider this selling out (I’ve never really understood that term in any case), merely selling something for good value. Sort of like I sell my labor for good value…and that’s not ‘selling out’ either. It’s putting food on my table and fine cigars and tequila in my cabinet. 
I heard a brief clip of an interview with him on the radio, and he said it was consuming too much of his time. It’s not just the basic software, he needed to keep the webiste up, manage thruput, I dunno, stuff. But just like it costs something to keep the SDMB on-line, even though all the software is written, it must have taken some resources for him to maintain such a popular website.
I don’t consider the OP’s premise to be selling out. I’d sign the papers in a heartbeat.
My definition of selling out:
I’m an artist/singer/writer/creator who’s made their reputation being anti-establishment, anti commercialism, anti-whatever and then sells rights to my most popular work to evilco.
Got it. If nothing else, he had to up his service level, given all the increased traffic.
I think the second sentence is the key point. In general, I have no issues with selling or ‘selling out’, if the price is fair to you. Yes, you may be losing out on possible future income, but without the investment of time and $ to perhaps go from a viral sensation to a blockbuster. 20 years of your income, presuming at least an above poverty level income in the US (not always a fair assumption, but…) is enough to generally set you up for life. Take it.
But again, the second sentence. That’s where I tend to see the term ‘sell out’ develop a useful meaning. If you’re selling to someone who is in opposition to your stated intents, or is buying your material to shut it down and reduce competition despite it being a superior product, then you’re selling out. Even so, in the majority of situations, your needs for security are going to trump your ideology. At most in those cases I would sigh and wish for more, but not actively berate the party in question.
And yes, I’d probably be a sell-out even in those situations. I’m well above the poverty level, but short of (likely) family inheritance, I can’t say I’m entirely financially secure for a future retirement, especially after COVID circumstances.
The NYT manages several similar properties, the best known of which is their crossword puzzle. Sure, they monetize them, but they do a fine job of maintaining them, making them available, and generally managing them competently. The NYT isn’t the only appropriate long-term home for Wordle, but it seems like a fine choice.
I’ve never seen this before. The post of “pjd” is faded out. How come? Mods?
It is a “Blur” in the text. It is a way to hide spoilers, puzzle answers. It makes the reader click on the blurred part to see it. That way if you don’t want to see the spoilers, you can avoid them. Check the “Wheel” icon in the reply box. You can blur any text you need to.
And the guy who created Wordle said he and his partner were fans of the NYT crossword puzzle and other games on the Times’ website, so presumably he’s favorably inclined.
Yep, and not only would I do so, I have done so. But I didn’t get that million. 
When I was a kid, I traded a Christmas Tree program that I wrote for the Apple ][ for a copy of the game Falcons at a computer store. I was a sellout as a teenager!
Thanks!
Whoops, never mind; SoToasty beat me to it.
But I thank you anyway!
Agree, “Selling Out” can mean many different things. Selling a product and selling your ethics are not necessarily the same. Although I am reminded of the old joke that could pretty well be summed up as it’s not really about principles, but all about price.
Absolutely. I’d sell out in almost any circumstance in which it’s clear that I can’t get a higher price and the product isn’t likely to be hugely valuable to me in a non-monetary way.
So yes, if I had been the creator of Wordle and someone dangled a million bucks in front of me, just present me with the dotted line and I sign it.
That article is idiotic and it’s author apparently a moron, at least insofar as appears from that article.
Wordle was a free game run by someone not remunerated for their time. The author liked that. The owner of Wordle sold the game to an eeeevil media organisation that might monetize the game. This, apparently, is bad.
The author himself works for a media organisation that monetizes its content, and couldn’t pay his wages if it didn’t. Hypocritical jerk.