161–170 of 516 posts
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 :).
If you're a maintainer, ctrl-f through this list and see if you're in there: https://blog.tidelift.com/is-your-package-eligible-for-incom...
Tidelift is also supported via the new GitHub Sponsors feature: https://tidelift.com/subscription/how-to-connect-tidelift-wi...
If you aren't in the 4000+ packages we have income for now, you can still sign up (which helps us get to subscribers who are specifically using your stuff, meaning income in the future).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying "open development" is not important but your message reads like its dismissive of people with different goals. I'm a developer, I might create some tool for my needs and share it with others. I've got other income sources so there's no need for me to charge money for it. I just put it on GitHub as the easiest thing I can do to allow others benefit from it. In some sense I would be open source developer…
That's fine and all. I'm not really involved in that side of things (consuming/producing open source libraries) and I think that side of open source is working fine, albeit it could be better (like most things). What I'm mainly thinking about, is the running infrastructure. The live servers that are serving requests and providing a service to open source developers. Some of these services are just nice to have. Other…
Yes, we'd all love to have our tools (repository, package hosting, CIs, ...) both satisfying our needs and be free of whims of for-profit companies.
Some of us simply don't care that much as long as what we have now works and I just wanted to append that to the conversation.
That's why I only said that your message reads like... and not assumed you really believe the service is bad in overall just because it's bad within scope of one aspect that's close to your heart. :)
this would a slam dunk if you could sponsor projects or organizations besides just developers. if that happened, this would destroy patreon and paypal in the donation space for OSS projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If they offered both (monthly and one-time payments) then the solution would be to allow the project to allow only one or the other or both or neither. So you could select that you'd only receive monthly payments and people wouldn't be able to send you one-time payments.
Being able to predict how much you're going to make it hugely helpful imo. Especially if you're a freelancer. You might see that in 3 months your funds are drying up, so plan accordingly.
Just brainstorming: But "similar features" could be trying to favor longer term donations. If a user wants to donate $20/m, maybe ask them for $10/m for 3 month increments?
Though, I suppose this isn't any better than the developer themself buffering funds in their bank. BUT, it seems like a meaningful concept, regardless.
I'd be tempted to sign up and just donate $5k to myself to get the 100% match.... #freemoney
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 would like a onetime donation as well. Especially since there are a lot of small, usefull projects that don't need a lot of maintenance.
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…
1: I could never be sure. One month it was $0, the next it was $3, the next it was $40. This is impossible to plan around. It's even worse now with everything moving to SaaS. It's easier to justify a subscription to something like EastWest Composer Cloud or Splice when I have a bunch of people subscribing to my work who've been there for months or a year.
2: I didn't know who they were. This was fine in the good months, but then I hit long stretches with nothing coming in, and I had no idea why. Did the platform make some change? Did my products fall out of fashion? I was at the mercy of opaque storefront logic and priorities.
And I don't mean in the creepy surveillance state sense. I know most of the people subscribing to me on Patreon through Mastodon. When they unsubscribe, I know why because they tell me. I sold tens of t-shirts years ago. I've never seen someone wear one. Nobody sent me an email. Sales collapsed one day and never returned. Patreon subscribers tell me good things about my music and writing all the time.
Neither of these is 100% a problem with one-off contributions, but the level of communication never matched this.
For now, it seems that the Microsoft acquisition has gone well, right?
Yes, free private repos alone was amazing and now this? With 2x matching (up to 5k) from MS themselves - this is amazing. If only they would release something similar to GitLab Runner a.k.a. GitHub Runner it would be golden!