41–50 of 516 posts
While this news sounds amazing on the surface, I am also concerned it might have negative effects on the OSS ecosystem overall. Let's see how this pans out!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> doesn't work well for Patreon and others What do you mean? What's wrong with Patreon?
"Take Patreon as an example, a popular funding platform for all sorts of things including open source projects that has been around since 2013 and has paid out $1 billion to creators since then. While that’s an astonishing figure, Patreon isn’t a sustainable business with its current private company model and level of VC funding of $105M: “Under the company’s current business model, 90 percent of funds are paid direc…
What's stopping me creating a sponsored project and donating myself $5,000 to get a free $5,000?
I'm guessing part of the waitlist requires an application where they gather info for fraud prevention. I'm sure you'll need to enter PII to send and receive payments -- MSFT doesn't strike me as a BTC operation. Money laundering is illegal :).
I run community sites for which I am paid donations to cover running costs including writing code, bug fixes, servers, etc. Today I take donations via PayPal, but the catch with this is that it's hard to provide visibility to donors of how healthy this is (WRT to costs), and whilst I considered Patreon that seemed to be very focused on creative deliverables to donors of a non-code/service nature. I am trying Browser…
Basically identical to what GitHub is now introducing, but with the nice feature of being open platforms and not seen as loss-leaders for their owner.
That being I think it's a great idea as we had many of bounty/subscription tools but they always fail to get adopted and in general lack proper integrations with projects itself. Bounty integration in issue tracker has been on my wishlist forever now, can we get that going next?
I love this. I do wonder though if anyone can educate me on the choice to do a monthly sponsorship? I think that's awesome but at the same time, there are a lot of developers I want to send 10 dollar tips to for that library that they made. Just wondering if there's a reason to not have both. My guess is that foregoing one time transactions in favour of ensuring that people gravitate towards making a more sustainable…
I also think it's about sustainability. As a developer receiving an X amount every month (+/- Y%) can heavily reduce the financial risk and help plan better. I'm currently not developing any open source software but if I was and worked as a freelancer knowing that by the end of the month I'll receive $500 for GitHub would allow me to balance my open source work with the freelance work, ensuring I have enough money to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like it's needed and (dareisay) overdue? Seems what they are planning to offer is not better nor different than what others already are providing (see OpenCollective or LiberaPay). In fact, it seems less than the existing options. The existing options are open platforms with open source code. What GitHub is introducing, seems to be a loss-leader (they give free cash away) for the sole purpose of getting…
And yet the open alternatives don’t seem to have amounted to anyone making a living from open source. Centralizing it offers a nicer UX - it’s not just about feature parity.
It would be cool if GitHub integrated with existing platforms and helped that to happen. Instead, they signal nothing about this problem and shipped yet-another platform.
They could have easily have contributed to solving the problem for real, but instead go their own way.
After all, this is the embrace, extend, and extinguish company.
Anyhow, I'm looking forward to see a similar feature implemented by Gitlab, even without the matching donations.
For now, it seems that the Microsoft acquisition has gone well, right?
I disagree. Before the acquisition, the work on GitHub was to make GitHub sustainable in it's own right. Now, with Microsoft owning it, they have given up on that idea since Microsoft mainly get their profits elsewhere. Instead, GitHub have now become a loss-leader for Microsoft, where every feature is meant to either lock in open developers in a closed source platform, or attract more open source developers to use t…
For now, it seems that the Microsoft acquisition has gone well, right?
I disagree. Before the acquisition, the work on GitHub was to make GitHub sustainable in it's own right. Now, with Microsoft owning it, they have given up on that idea since Microsoft mainly get their profits elsewhere. Instead, GitHub have now become a loss-leader for Microsoft, where every feature is meant to either lock in open developers in a closed source platform, or attract more open source developers to use t…
Is that really an issue?
How much did has Google's non-monetization of Chrome hurt the product vs helped it?