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

Recap of the `funding` experiment

feross.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#41

Post by fergie »

It makes me sad to see the negativity that this experiment has attracted, even in this HN discussion thread there seem to be a lot of dismissive and patronising comments directed towards Feross.

I'm genuinely unsure if this is because people think that Feross has much lower ability than he actually has, or if they are jealous of the attention he has received for Standard.js, or if it is just because JS programmers are still looked down upon.

Either way we are talking about somebody with a pretty impressive CV who has made countless meaningful contributions to Open Source. Personally I think the work that he has done around WebTorrent is amazing, and WebTorrents may even end up saving humanity by making it possible to recentralise the web (only slight hyperbole, and if they dont, it will be something very similar).

Its true that Open Source is now an industry that generates billions if not trillions of dollars a year, yet very little of that makes its way to the people who actually make the stuff. Feross is right to explore ways to pay OS maintainers, even if those attempts sometimes fail. We will all be better off for it.

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#42

Post by langitbiru »

I think the pandora box has been opened. I predict there are some people who will build startups around this idea (not me). pip install something / npm install someting/ brew install something, and you will see the ads. The startup will build a dashboard for advertisers. The terminal will be the next frontier for advertisements.

The storm is coming.

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#43

Post by michaelt »

justsubmit wrote: post #14
danShumway wrote: post #7

I'm in the early stages of building some tools to automatically lock new issues in my own Open Source repos, and to give Patreon supporters automatic access to comment on locked issues. Anyone will be able to read existing Github/Gitlab issues, but only supporters will be able to join the conversation or file new issues. It's loosely based on some ideas that William Gross[0] and a few other sources have proposed. You…

That attitude is very strange to me. I care about the quality and usefulness of my software. I give it away to give back, because I have been given much. There are bugs in my software which I will never discover on my own. When a user offers me a bug report or a patch, that user is also giving back. The bug report is a form of contribution. It gives me information I wouldn't otherwise have, which I can use to improve…

  There are bugs in my software
  which I will never discover
  on my own. [...] The bug report
  is a form of contribution.
Well, there are at least two ways of viewing a bug report:

1. A bug report is a helpful contribution towards more perfect software, giving the developer new information but no obligation.

For example, pointing out a security bug.

2. A bug report is a request for support, asking the developer to work on a code path they themselves don't use (as if they did, they'd have triggered the bug themselves).

For example, asking them to fix graphics support on 3dfx on Windows NT 4.0 :)

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#44

Post by baq »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #34
feross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also tend to be sensitive about arbitrary code execution Presumably, if you're already downloading and executing code that I wrote, you trust me to use `console.log` correctly?

Personally, if you’re trying to inject advertising scripts into my critical infrastructure, then no, I absolutely don’t trust you. Like many others, I put a lot of effort into trying to sanely manage my dependencies, finding adware in there would be an enormous red flag. You’re probably a good person, and you seem to be trying to do something good. But I know almost nothing about you, and even if I did, the fact that…

so i guess you're mailing a check in return for services provided?

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#45

Post by q3k »

lazypenguin wrote: post #35
marknadal wrote: post #13

I'm a maintainer of a 10K+ starred project with 1M+ monthly downloads and I know Feross personally. I do not agree or support this movement. Don't do Open Source if you can't afford it. It is as simple as that. Framing it as exploitation is misses the point of collaboration. It has never been about us, it's been about giving value to the world. We can't play the victim card. Nobody wants a whining Batman or Spiderman…

I'm surprised nobody else has said this as well. If you want to get paid for your time or your projects then stop giving them away for free? Nobody is under any obligation to work on open source so it's peculiar that someone who chooses to do so would then complain afterwards...just stop working on it...

> Nobody is under any obligation to work on open source so it's peculiar that someone who chooses to do so would then complain afterwards..

Except more and more employers judge job candidates per their open source projects and contributions. It can create a positive feedback loop, where only people who can afford to work on open source projects do so, and thus get better offers in the future. While people who can't afford it will never be able to break through recruitment because of a mostly empty github profile.

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#46

Post by thosakwe »

I said something similar on a previous post, but more and more, it’s becoming more clear to that “open source” and “profit” are not very compatible.

The truth is simple: if you use a permissive license like MIT, you will probably never see a penny from the thousands of hours you put in, and while you are struggling and feeling drained, people who will never contribute more than a vague “it doesn’t work” GitHub issue are making tremendous profit on your back. The only way to prevent that (at least, that I know of), is using copyleft licenses like GPL, LGPL, etc.

I don’t find many compelling reasons to make anything other than command-line tools open source at this point, and even then, they’d all be GPL. For me, if someone could potentially profit from the work, it makes more sense to simply charge for it. That’s still an option, and we shouldn’t forget it.

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#47

Post by scandox »

marknadal wrote: post #13

I'm a maintainer of a 10K+ starred project with 1M+ monthly downloads and I know Feross personally. I do not agree or support this movement. Don't do Open Source if you can't afford it. It is as simple as that. Framing it as exploitation is misses the point of collaboration. It has never been about us, it's been about giving value to the world. We can't play the victim card. Nobody wants a whining Batman or Spiderman…

> We can't play the victim card. Nobody wants a whining Batman or Spiderman.

I don't know my own opinion on this topic, but framing any form of work in terms of a selfless, uncomplaining heroism seems like ideal advertising copy for corporate exploitation. I know what you're saying which is effectively "only wear the cape if you can fly"...but the subtext could be interpreted as "hey kids be a superhero and by the way superheroes never feel pain or complain...so don't be one of those".

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#48

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

baq wrote: post #44
AmericanChopper wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, if you’re trying to inject advertising scripts into my critical infrastructure, then no, I absolutely don’t trust you. Like many others, I put a lot of effort into trying to sanely manage my dependencies, finding adware in there would be an enormous red flag. You’re probably a good person, and you seem to be trying to do something good. But I know almost nothing about you, and even if I did, the fact that…

so i guess you're mailing a check in return for services provided?

False dichotomy; the world is not solely consist of adware and paid software.

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#49

Post by baq »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #48
baq wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so i guess you're mailing a check in return for services provided?

False dichotomy; the world is not solely consist of adware and paid software.

of course. i'm just pointing out that having a 'critical' infrastructure which components have been obtained for free and then complaining about those components asking for money in one way or another is rude; unless the OP already donates and didn't say so, in which case please accept my sincere apologies.

Re: Recap of the `funding` experiment

#50

Post by pferde »

baq wrote: post #49
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy; the world is not solely consist of adware and paid software.

of course. i'm just pointing out that having a 'critical' infrastructure which components have been obtained for free and then complaining about those components asking for money in one way or another is rude; unless the OP already donates and didn't say so, in which case please accept my sincere apologies.

That's a deeply flawed line of thinking.

Those components were obtained at a price of 0 moneys, which at the time of "obtaining" was agreed upon by both sides. In this situation, yes, asking for money later is very rude, in my opinion.

Post reply on HN