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

Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

blog.gitea.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 187 posts

Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

#91

Post by barnabee »

throwaccount12 wrote: post #25

Lots of focus on the DAO mention in the post, but it looking at the concrete things in the blog post instead of some "experiment", there are direct funding models of selling hosting, support services, training and more. The DAO is likely just a way to make the governance of the community more transparent, but I think people are confusing it with creating a crypto coin.

I’d rather see funding come from a crypto token that keeps the software completely open source than enterprise sales, aid hosted versions, and going “open core”.

I don’t understand how anyone believes that the current trend of so called “open source” startups is good for free software or anyone other than investors.

Given that, I’m very up for experimentation with new types of organisational and finding models for open projects, including ones that use cryptocurrencies and smart contracts.

Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

#92

Post by barnabee »

throwaccount12 wrote: post #24
LanternLight83 wrote: post #22

The implication of a DAO and Crypto involvement has stirred attention in the comments. I have 2¢ on the matter. First, I don't think we've seen many examples like this in open-source communities. For that reason alone, regardless of the idea's merit, I welcome it; if it is to fail, let us see it, that we may have a case study in the future. Worst case, there is wide support for a fork, and I don't see that becoming a…

I hold zero crypto, but by reading of the DAO is that it is one of the ways mentioned of trying to benefit the community or perhaps it will be used for community governance (elsewhere in the post it mentions hiring maintainers, and also creating bounties to fund development), not a way of creating some crypto coin to sell.

Even if it was a way to sell crypto coins and fund development (presumably while also giving backers some visibility and say on the project’s governance), how is that worse than making part of the project closed source and paid for?

Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

#93

Post by cinntaile »

Aachen wrote: post #80
trevyn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, they don't exactly make it low-friction to become a member: > Membership fees are debited by means of SEPA direct debit. Please email to contact@codeberg.org for other transfer methods.

That is literally the easiest inclusive way that works beyond a single country's borders. Easier for me would be iDeal, but that's not easier for you unless you're also Dutch. Easier for people in the USA might be credit cards, but those are issued only if you have a credit rating at all and the rating is good (I don't meet the former condition so bank said no), and surely transferring money from anywhere in the worl…

It doesn't have to be the only way. Add a Stripe, Klarna, Adyen, Paypal... option and you lower the barriers even more.

Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

#94

Post by rapnie »

goodpoint wrote: post #81
Aachen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was fully expecting a licence change with that preamble. And then they mention DAO ._. GPL scares people for stupid reasons (stupid from my fanatical perspective that if you use open source software, of course your derivatives ought to be open as well), Gitea honestly might be so popular because it had a more free license than GPL. Doesn't mean I'm sad to see they're not even trying to make these changes be co…

> Gitea honestly might be so popular because it had a more free license than GPL Citation needed.

> more free

That is in the eye of the beholder. Phrasing as 'more permissive' is more accurate.

Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

#95

Post by barnabee »

bruce511 wrote: post #51
guywhocodes wrote: post #11

Lost me at: > An enhanced enterprise version Good thing it's towards the end, guess it's time for the next fork of gogs then.

I'm going to assume you are not an enterprise - forgive me if I'm wrong. Enterprises have very different needs to individual developers and small shops. So there are always features which apply to enterprises but not to small companies. Consider for example Active Directory integration. Equally purchasing in an enterprise is different to small companies. If you work for a small company you can basically go to a decis…

The problem is when any of the features the enterprise wants to / can buy is closed source and not available on the same terms as the rest of the project.

Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

#96

Post by joepie91_ »

kdumont wrote: post #77
lvncelot wrote: post #71

> If you are a company and rely on Gitea, especially for critical operations, please get in touch as we are now able to offer: > [...] > An enhanced enterprise version It's sad to see Gitea not receiving enough donations/funding to stay afloat, and I obviously can't fault them for taking the necessary steps to generate revenue, but it's also sad to see it eventually going open-core. (Which is how I read the announcem…

As far as I've seen it's actually the opposite. Gitea has been growing in support and popularity, and as such, it needed to put some legal structure in place to deal with increased income and distribution of funds so that it's not abused. That is, I BELIEVE, the intention with the announcement and structural changes. As a relatively significant commercial backer of both bounties and Open Collective, I was as surprise…

> Gitea has been growing in support and popularity, and as such, it needed to put some legal structure in place to deal with increased income and distribution of funds so that it's not abused.

None of that requires turning it from an open-source into an open-core project.

Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

#97

Post by bruce511 »

guywhocodes wrote: post #63
alias_neo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue, in my mind, if I was making a similar comment, is that projects seem draw the line in the wrong place for where "Enterprise" begins. I suspect this person's fears may be similar. The issue isn't that they'll offer enterprise, the issue is that they'll carve up the non-enterprise version as a differentiator. Inevitably, and I've seen this before, the non-enterprise version loses all steam because time and e…

This is pretty much my sentiment as well. The problem is that the obscure integration problems are better solved by a system integrator if they are so bespoke they don't belong in the code base. I've worked with enterprise customers before and yes it tend to be LDAP and active directory stuff they ask for in terms of features. I run my own LDAP, am I enterprise? Further this undermines their argument. It comes off as…

So, yes, (to answer both followups here) - obviously there's a danger that the OSS version gets less time and attention, and in many cases it'll start prioritising actual customers (ie those paying money) over folks using the OSS version.

I certainly understand why those who are using software for free see this as the thin-edge-of-the-wedge, the start of the product morphing to something that is less free.

On the other hand, despite the health risks, eating is still enormously popular. Developers want to get paid, and so they tend to gravitate towards models that, well, earn money. OSS is great (I'm a fan) but it doesn't pay the bills. OSS should be what you do in your spare time, not your day job. If OSS is your day job then either you're lucky, and someone is funding it, or it's only a matter of time before you need to switch to a different day job.

Bottom line - if OSS doesn't sort out an actual funding model that works - if users (of the Libre version) aren't willing to pay real money, on a regular basis, en masse - then don't be surprised if the developers need to switch it up to earn a living.

There's this perception that "big companies" should just fund all OSS for everyone, but I'm saying that this can never work - that's pretty much exactly what "big companies" are set up not to do.

Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

#98

Post by johannes1234321 »

Aachen wrote: post #82
johannes1234321 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only convenient, but also cheap. Often free, certainly less fees than PayPal etc.

Don't non-consumer account holders pay much higher fees? I seem to remember they were okay if you can have a very low transaction cap, but if you need to accept/send many payments, you had to get expensive subscriptions or pay per transaction. Almost certainly still cheaper than literally any alternative, though, since you need that bank account anyway and I will get very much doubt they'd take as big a cut as the pa…

Yes, bank accounts for commercial purpose have different fees, but unless they pick a completely stupid bank it's still multiple orders of magnitude cheaper than any other transfer.

Only downside of SEPA is that it is a lot less common outside EU/Europe and then more expensive and instant payment is not really possible (there are some vendors offering solutions ...) but that doesn't seem to be their aim. (Would be: "click here to get a license for a commercial download")

Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea

#100

Post by viraptor »

throwaccount12 wrote: post #26
cycomanic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused, they don't mention crypto. This blog post is simply an announcement that they started a company. The purpose seems to mainly be for providing support services and paying developers. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It does mention DAO, which is crypto adjacent, however like you said the purpose listed in the post is to provide paid support services, the DAO is for governance of the community, not to shill some scam crypto coin.

Whatever the official purpose is going to be, there will be lots of people trading the relevant token and people who got it first are going to cash out during one of the many pump and dumps. And the "why aren't you collaborating with (whatever Web3 project)" / "why aren't you promoting the token more" spam will start too. I've seen it before and it's not going to be pretty.
Post reply on HN