Concept is very similar to Coil.com s "donation" for web content. But Coil actually does "pay by usage" and should therefore be more fair at distributing the money.
Its hard to define usage for an open source project.
A new funding model for open source software
111–120 of 184 posts
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#112I like the idea but instead of pools going arbitrarily every which way or to the discretion of the donator, it should be automatically applied across that open source project's dependencies as well. If I am open source software A, and I make ample use of open source software B within my project, your pool donation should automatically apply some to B, relative to it's usage in the project.
Careful there. Any metric used as a proxy to gauge the value of a dependency to the project could result in the system being gamed.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#113Everyone thinks they deserve a dollar and can never imagine that the relative value of their code is effectively zero no matter how much it solves a particular problem. >Big projects — operating systems, frameworks, CMSs, or fully self-hostable applications — are in a privileged position to extract more value from their users, especially corporate ones Big projects aren't privileged to extract more value. They're pri…
Yeah, the market value for most of these open source packages is $0. There's nothing about charging for software that goes against the spirit of libre software. (In the 2000s, Debian and Ubuntu made money by charging for CDs of the installers.) The reason these npm-type packages can't charge is that they're extremely fungible. Left-pad, react-router, etc. are trivial and nearly identical to the next one that is given…
Debian itself has never sold physical CDs, that is delegated to CD vendors, some of whom may donate a portion back to Debian:
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#114I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…
Author here - 100% agree on all fronts! I was dancing around this conclusion but it really does need to be GitHub. And I agree people would be fine paying their own fees if it came to that. Also, in that case, if someone is donating a non-trivial amount, they're incentivized to fund their wallet with a cheaper payment method like an ACH transfer.
Can I be fair & frank?
Your article does raise a few great points... about Github specifically. But not about funding sustainable OSS development in general.
Open source also is not a business model. It's a principle that relates to intellectual rights and copyright: the author explicitly stating that they won't exercise their rights as to what others do with their work, provided then that others share any modifications under the same terms of use. That's open source in a nutshell.
The direct implication, then, is that any business model that hinges on selling licenses that give a very restricted permission on the use of (a copy of) the software, is excluded. Which is exactly how games and products from Adobe or Microsoft are sold: you buy a license - a permission from the original author - to use the software.
Github itself has never been a marketplace to sell software. There are no affordances that allows anyone to sell and buy license keys or whatever. It's always been a descendant in the spirit of SourceForge or Freshmeat: a platform for hosting codebases via version control. No more, no less. Github pushes open source as a matter of principle because it's - above all - excellent marketing that doesn't need complex tooling: simply adding a LICENSE.md file with the GPL or MIT license is already enough.
Open source is not flawed, as you state. It's above all a principled choice you make. And it's a choice you make depending on the type of value you want to extract from the project you're writing.
In your article, you are lamenting the low income numbers from publishing code under an open source license on Github. Well, ask yourself this: Maybe it's not open source that's flawed, but the other way around: The tools you choose to extract value not fitting your expectations. If you really want to monetize software, then maybe you're better off looking into a closed source license and a platform that does allow you to sell license keys. Much like what Sublime or InteliJ and such do.
It's true though that funding Open Source projects is problematic. But this has always been true for any non-profit venture: Ranging from charity, culture, environmentalist causes or other types of citizen activism that doesn't involve setting up a private business. Open Source software is no exception, and unless you're able to charge for consultancy or derivative products (e.g. a service build on top of OSS software), you're funding options are very much limited to grants, philanthropy or donations.
Nadia Eghbal did an excellent study for the Ford Foundation that sums up the issues with funding open source nicely: Roads & Bridges, the unseen labor behind our digital infrastructure:
https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-report...
It's a recommended read on this topic.
Beyond that, the pool & wallet solution you're proposing is above all an attempt to incentivise a specific type of funding: private, individual donations. I think it's a great idea in it's own right, and something worth considering. But it should be clear that it's a far cry from a silver bullet that will solve the disparity between the many profiting from labor of a few against a low financial reward for their efforts.
Personally, I think that if you're willing to work on your own open source projects, you have to mindful that you exclude the possibility to directly derive wealth from what you've build.
It's up to you then to figure out the alternatives: e.g. selling training, workshops, support,... or maybe getting hired by a company who are willing to let you work part time on your OSS project, or getting publicly funded because your project caters to the public good (e.g. culture, health, education, mobility,...)
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#115I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…
So we delegate complete control over open source financing channel to Microsoft, because it's most conveniant option? Sounds a bit insane. I do use both GitHub and its Sponsors feature, but I'm still hoping for open source community to come to consensus to use a service from non-profit organization like Mozilla or EFF.
This wouldn't prevent you sending cash to the developer in an envelope, just like Github existing doesn't prevent you hosting your project elsewhere
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#116I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…
> the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. Yes, let's encourage another walled-garden controlled by a dominant player which would be benefiting from FOSS donations (keeping % of it) while doing nothing to make GitHub a FOSS platform at the same time.
First, they don't even cover the cost of their credit card processing. They even used to match donations up to $5000. This is clearly not a profit center for them.
What it is, actually, is excellent long-term business sense. They know that maintaining open source is draining, often thankless and demoralizing. Making sure that their best assets are provided for is just smart.
But also, your attitude is wishful thinking, like Linux on grandma's desktop. And are you seriously implying that Github isn't a FOSS platform? That seems intellectually dishonest at this stage.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#117I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…
So we delegate complete control over open source financing channel to Microsoft, because it's most conveniant option? Sounds a bit insane. I do use both GitHub and its Sponsors feature, but I'm still hoping for open source community to come to consensus to use a service from non-profit organization like Mozilla or EFF.
Friend, you are going to be waiting for a very, very long time.
In the meantime, every day OSS project maintainers get burned out, depressed, and often called mean names and there is no viable mechanism for them to get paid for it. CodeFund shut down, Flattr is not a significant player - I first heard of it in this thread.
Frankly, the network effects of GH make them the only viable place for this to happen in the medium future.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we delegate complete control over open source financing channel to Microsoft, because it's most conveniant option? Sounds a bit insane. I do use both GitHub and its Sponsors feature, but I'm still hoping for open source community to come to consensus to use a service from non-profit organization like Mozilla or EFF.
This wouldn't prevent you sending cash to the developer in an envelope, just like Github existing doesn't prevent you hosting your project elsewhere
With my tongue firmly pressed in cheek, I think you're being charitable to imply that most loud FOSS champions are currently making any meaningful attempt to send money to developers.
No, this is all about hating Github/Microsoft because they are big and because they won. Nothing in my comment is remotely controversial to realists.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#119I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…
This is probably meant to be a feature request aimed at the Github team. They introduced a sponsorship program and now that it's gaining traction people want a more streamlined and optimized product.
I believe that it's a mistake to compare sponsorship and a monthly pool as the OP suggests, as they are motivated by completely different instincts.
Patreon vs. Humble Bundle, as I said elsewhere.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we delegate complete control over open source financing channel to Microsoft, because it's most conveniant option? Sounds a bit insane. I do use both GitHub and its Sponsors feature, but I'm still hoping for open source community to come to consensus to use a service from non-profit organization like Mozilla or EFF.
This wouldn't prevent you sending cash to the developer in an envelope, just like Github existing doesn't prevent you hosting your project elsewhere
To send someone money I'd have to know their address (not viable). If they only accept money through GitHub sponsorship, then I'm prevented from donating in any other way.
Which option do we (content creators) endorse? We definitely need to transition to better funding model. Seeking out donations and sponsorships is frustrating and that time could be better spent. GitHub Sponsors managed to solve most problems on technical level, but I'd like to see other options.