Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 185 posts

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#11

Post by daurnimator »

huffmsa wrote: post #5
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #2

Here’s the catch: when you give away something completely for free, people aren’t that motivated to pay for it. It's worse than that, people don't value it very highly if it's free.

I was just thinking the other day, "If Wikipedia became a paid product, would I pay for it?" Really, what would happen if it became a for profit product? Would I pay for access to the greatest single repository of information the world has ever seen? Or would I shrug my shoulder and let Google tell me that I actually meant to query something else, and trust that the top placed link is really the best?

I (and most people) used to buy encyclopedias. If wikipedia didn't exist, I would again...

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#12

Post by jarfil »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #10
miguelrochefort wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can we fix that?

By giving it away for free only for personal rather than commercial use, as lots of software used to be in the last millenium? But of course what's going to happen is a certain F/OSS advocacy org will shout "this isn't F/OSS as it doesn't obey our no-purpose-limitation criterion" and you and your software will be treated as a pariah and avoided like the plague and even more than pure closed-source software.

That's why there are "non-free" repos. Not much of a problem, really.

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#13

Post by icebraining »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #10
miguelrochefort wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can we fix that?

By giving it away for free only for personal rather than commercial use, as lots of software used to be in the last millenium? But of course what's going to happen is a certain F/OSS advocacy org will shout "this isn't F/OSS as it doesn't obey our no-purpose-limitation criterion" and you and your software will be treated as a pariah and avoided like the plague and even more than pure closed-source software.

Fine, so you write a bunch of code, and release it under an NC license and a paid commercial license, no problem. Then someone comes along and submits a PR. What now? Will you accept their code and monetize it, despite the fact that you still deny that person the right to monetize your code, or will you refuse all PRs?

The problem with these proposals is that it creates an unequal relationship; some developers have more rights just because they started the project, even if others have contributed significantly.

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#14

Post by flr03 »

daurnimator wrote: post #11
huffmsa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just thinking the other day, "If Wikipedia became a paid product, would I pay for it?" Really, what would happen if it became a for profit product? Would I pay for access to the greatest single repository of information the world has ever seen? Or would I shrug my shoulder and let Google tell me that I actually meant to query something else, and trust that the top placed link is really the best?

I (and most people) used to buy encyclopedias. If wikipedia didn't exist, I would again...

I used to buy encyclopedias too, paper first and later on CD. But let's be honest here, there is no coming back from Wikipedia. The amount of informations on every single subject, the details, the fact that's its extremely dynamic (yes this new Usain Bolt world record is updated faster than than the actually record time), this is incomparable.

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#15

Post by huffmsa »

daurnimator wrote: post #11
huffmsa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just thinking the other day, "If Wikipedia became a paid product, would I pay for it?" Really, what would happen if it became a for profit product? Would I pay for access to the greatest single repository of information the world has ever seen? Or would I shrug my shoulder and let Google tell me that I actually meant to query something else, and trust that the top placed link is really the best?

I (and most people) used to buy encyclopedias. If wikipedia didn't exist, I would again...

How many information sources do you currently pay for on a monthly basis?

How many times have you actually clicked the "donate" button when Jimmy Wales asks you to?

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#16

Post by shabda »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #2

Here’s the catch: when you give away something completely for free, people aren’t that motivated to pay for it. It's worse than that, people don't value it very highly if it's free.

It is probably even worse, people assume that they get what they pay for, so some people won't even look at the free options.

It is happening with me right now. I am searching for a Jekyll theme, and there are a bunch of free ones, but because time is money I will only try the paid ones.

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#17

Post by jarfil »

Altruistic FOSS works best when there are many more users than issues, ideally technical users capable of fixing them, so a fraction of the users can donate just a small amount of their time and get the project going. Alternatively, when some business players decide to collaborate on a project and fund its development.

Otherwise, when there are many more issues than users, particularly users who aren't capable or willing to fix them, then it's just a few developers working their skin off to pull the project, and that requires a more direct form of compensation.

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#18

Post by huffmsa »

skohan wrote: post #7
huffmsa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just thinking the other day, "If Wikipedia became a paid product, would I pay for it?" Really, what would happen if it became a for profit product? Would I pay for access to the greatest single repository of information the world has ever seen? Or would I shrug my shoulder and let Google tell me that I actually meant to query something else, and trust that the top placed link is really the best?

How would monetizing Wikipedia even work? That raise a lot of questions about fair compensation for the people creating content.

Its a different line of discussion, but one which is being wrestled with all over the internet. How do you compensate content creators who are not your direct employees for producing content on your platform.

See YouTube.

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#19

Post by pjc50 »

shabda wrote: post #16
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #2

Here’s the catch: when you give away something completely for free, people aren’t that motivated to pay for it. It's worse than that, people don't value it very highly if it's free.

It is probably even worse, people assume that they get what they pay for, so some people won't even look at the free options. It is happening with me right now. I am searching for a Jekyll theme, and there are a bunch of free ones, but because time is money I will only try the paid ones.

Bit of a bipolar market: in Android apps, hardly anyone pays upfront, so apps develop all sorts of weird post-hoc monetisation.

Re: GitHub stars won’t pay your rent

#20

Post by pjc50 »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #10
miguelrochefort wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can we fix that?

By giving it away for free only for personal rather than commercial use, as lots of software used to be in the last millenium? But of course what's going to happen is a certain F/OSS advocacy org will shout "this isn't F/OSS as it doesn't obey our no-purpose-limitation criterion" and you and your software will be treated as a pariah and avoided like the plague and even more than pure closed-source software.

Define "commercial use". It's not a clear bright line.
Post reply on HN