Live data from Hacker News

The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

trstringer.com

151–160 of 413 posts

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#151
This is a complicated problem I see pop up on HN every once in a while, in different forms. I think there is neither an easy solution, nor a simple one.

Each culture is different, but many people now see 'free' and don't think of how that product is getting created.

For Open Source the problem is even worse. As a project becomes more popular there are more demands on a maintainer's time, which is in short supply for most good senior devs. They have a demanding job, they have a wife, they have children, they have other family, they have friends, they have their own self-learning. This doesn't count the lucky ones whose employers pay them to work on Open Source software. Once a FOSS project gets to a certain adoption level it becomes a supply & demand problem where the demand quickly outstrips the supply.

How do we fix this? Well, we can either reduce the demand (PRs, issues, etc on a single project) or increase the supply (hours of dev time).

One way of reducing the demand is to have many projects that do similar small things, splitting users across the ecosystem. The NodeJS NPM system is like that. I think that leads to problems with reliability, technology selection choices, and vulnerability finding/fixing. Then again, NodeJS is still going strong.

Increasing the supply from one person is hard. For most the supply spent on personal relationships (family, friends) should not change, except to go up. That leaves the supply spent on work. This is a hard problem too. Most devs work a minimum of a 40 hour week. The only possibilities are going freelance, so you can choose your own hours if you can financially justify it (many freelancers work more than a 40 hr week though), or going part-time (which is not an option for many). Let's say a senior engineer makes $160k salary (not looking at options, etc in this math). For him to go freelance he would need to cover family health insurance and life insurance, say $2000 per month, $24k total [1]. Taxes will be around $60k [2]. These are both much more than he'd pay working for a company. To get the same spending power freelance as he did at a company, he's going to need to make about 40% more (16% for FICA taxes, 24% for insurance), or around $200k. That's not doable from donations, for any other than a select few maybe.

What about around half? He can make $100k from freelancing, $104k from Open Source donations. For Patreon the average backer pledges $6 per month [3], or $1.50 per week. You'd also need to figure out what pledger rewards were. You would need around 1800 backers to do that. As a project rises in popularity you will also have an opportunity to get a co-maintainer or two who helps oversee PRs, etc. The pledges should be split among the co-maintainers, which means more pledges needed. The co-maintainers can also start to have some of their freelancing be consulting on using the project. JBoss is a great example of that, so are a number of other projects. When you get to enough consulting on it, with 2-4 other maintainers, you might save each other costs by incorporating as an S-Corp.

Ok, so if that works, why isn't everyone doing it?

There are a number of reasons.

First, security & stability. Some people need the stability, structure, and security that comes from working in a company. Freelancing is a lot of work, across a diverse set of skills, and there are no guarantees of a next paycheck. You might make $10k one month and $1k the next (an outlier, but it happens). So you have to be very budgeted, with a nice safety net in your account for dry spells.

Next, skill set & capabilities. Some people just are not good at marketing, or working with people. I think you cannot be successful in freelancing without having some skill at marketing and at working with people. I also think you can't really be successful as a software engineer without those skills either,but that's a different topic.

Finally, risk. I touched on this in the first point above, but it's worth touching on again. Freelancing is high risk. Your work could hit a dry spell. You could get sued (you did get liability insurance right?). Some people, or their family, find it unhealthy to have to deal with that level of risk.

Are there other solutions? Probably. Better ones? Possibly. Dev collectives, bounties, FOSS organization grants, FOSS organization patronage (Google Summer of Code is an example) are all other ideas that come to mind.

As always, I am a dev - I am neither a lawyer, nor an accountant, so do not take the above as legal or financial advice.

1. https://www.ramseysolutions.com/insurance/how-much-does-heal....

2. https://www.quora.com/If-a-professional-freelancer-were-to-m...

3. https://www.crowdcrux.com/patreon-statistics-and-demographic....

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#152
post #29

IMO a huge problem is that extremely permissive licenses have totally devalued software development as the software you release gives everyone the opportunity to infinitely exploit it. What did people think was going to happen? I find it especially funny when people complain "that they can't use the software 'at work'" when you release something as GPL.

> the software you release gives everyone the opportunity to infinitely exploit it

How is that exploitation if you write some software for yourself, think it's useful for others, release it and then someone else uses it? If the software wasn't released, then others may have the same need and thus similar software may be written multiple times in a huge waste of time and effort.

To my mind, open source software is returning to the basics of human society - helping each other where we can. If you only ever do things with the intention of getting paid to do them, then you live a sad life.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#153
post #95

I think an open source compensation system could work similar to how artists are payed when their song is played on the radio. Radio stations in Sweden pay a fee to an organisation which distributes the money to artists in proportion to the amount of playtime. Imagine a new type of open source license that mandated paying a membership fee to a global foundation to use the code commercially. Non-commersial use would s…

> Imagine a new type of open source license that mandated paying a membership fee to a global foundation to use the code commercially. That would by definition not be open source.

This is the most underrated comment in this whole thread.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#154
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that's not how central planning worked, right? You were told to live in a specific place, with a few (narrow) options on where to work at (unless you were (un)specialised, then there was sometimes zero choice), for meagre but sufficient compensation. You could have a place to live, food to eat. The place to live might be a room in an apartment shared with other families, the food to eat might be bread with b…

You forgot the part where the central planners herded millions of people into Gulags, starved tens of millions more to death, then executed a few million more for good measure. Other than that, spot on though.

[deleted]

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#155
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d be pretty surprised if that increase averaged more than 15 seconds per person per day and shocked if the increase was more than 3 minutes on average.

Python 3.11.6 (main, Oct 3 2023, 00:00:00) [GCC 13.2.1 20230728 (Red Hat 13.2.1-1)] on linux Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information. >>> population_base = [100_000_000, 1_000_000_000, 8_000_000_000] >>> for population in population_base: ... print('15s/day for',population, 'people equals:', round((15*population)/3600), 'man-hours/day') ... ... 15s/day for 100000000 people equals: 4166…

Now compare that to the total productivity loss (using whatever marginal efficiency deflator you think is reasonable).

If you're trying to get shorter workdays, go for that.

If you're trying to get more open source labor, go for that.

Arguing that the best way to target the second is via the first seems tenuous at best.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#156
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still beats having a central planner from the politburo tell you to work in the mines for zero compensation.

You know that's not how central planning worked, right? You were told to live in a specific place, with a few (narrow) options on where to work at (unless you were (un)specialised, then there was sometimes zero choice), for meagre but sufficient compensation. You could have a place to live, food to eat. The place to live might be a room in an apartment shared with other families, the food to eat might be bread with b…

Ah, ye olden 'capitalism, or dystopian despair!'

Strangely one of those things that culturally, we can't get past. It's a false dichotomy at best, and completely ignores the costs of implementing capitalism.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#157
post #7

The annoying part in this debate is people spending their lives on a project and demanding to be paid for it. Don’t do it! Who’s asking you to work on it? I say this as a minor OSS developer who receives some donations. I love the money, but it would be pretty dumb for me to say they oughta pay me, because the only reason I work on it is addiction/compulsion/procrastination of real work. If it bothered me that people…

> The annoying part in this debate is people spending their lives on a project and demanding to be paid for it. > Don’t do it! Who’s asking you to work on it?

I think the issue here is that we don't have a system where being an OSS contributor is a sustainable career path.

The value we get from OSS compared to the monetary compensation for that work is disproportionately small.

OSS generally doesn't depend on an army of people paid to make you buy shit you don't need or want.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#158
It's really interesting to me how the vibes have shifted against open source in recent years. I remember when open source came out, it seemed like an implicit critique of proprietary software as stuffy and corporate. But proprietary software has an advantage: The devs get paid.

If you want to get paid for your work, why are you choosing to give it away for free? I'm not judging, I'm genuinely curious. Are there any open source boosters left, and if so how would they make the case for open source at this point?

Maybe what's needed is a "for-profit open source" license, where the code is free for anyone to read, but it's illegal to use for commercial purposes without paying. I'm guessing this approach is already being explored?

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#159
post #109
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! Its always the same. When volunteers start to complain they aren't compensated for their work, things start to smell fishy. And this kind of behaviour seems to have increased lately. Rather sad. Either I do something for the love of it, or I am going for a paying job. Sometimes people are lucky and these two are the same, but that is very much the exception.

> Either I do something for the love of it, or I am going for a paying job. Sometimes people are lucky and these two are the same, but that is very much the exception. Why should that be the exception? Why shouldn't people's passions, especially when they are widely useful to others, not be encouraged and turned into paying jobs? Everyone wins. The passionate can keep doing what they're passionate about without havin…

> Why shouldn't people's passions, especially when they are widely useful to others, not be encouraged and turned into paying jobs?

Because there is no fair way of estimating what someone's work is worth without a free market. Sometimes it turns up weird outcomes like maintaining a critical driver being worth $0.

If someone is willing to do something for free and the marginal cost of copying the work is 0 then by simple economics they will not get paid for doing the thing. Same logic applies to having children, advocating good ideas in politics and a lot of creative work.

Besides, why should someone doing what they are passionate about entitle them to a leg up? What about someone doing plumbing and hating it? They're making more of a sacrifice for the benefit of others, they deserve more money. And if someone is adding enormous value then let them who recognise it pay for it.

Nothing wrong with people working on their passions and making money of course, but words like 'should' are suspicious. Once you get to software development, people are in a world where market forces are fair and reasonable.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#160

One of the problems I found with this is that actually taking donations is hard work. I live in a country completely unsuited to making money from a hobby project on the side. To take donations I'd need to register as self-employed, and pay monthly for social security as long as I'm registered, even if I make no revenue whatsoever in that month. That's an absolutely awful idea for a project just getting started. I'd…

This is one area where cryptocurrencies are useful. Don't need anything other than a wallet address.

You don't need cryptocurrencies to commit tax fraud. The problem isn't being technically unable to get the money.
Post reply on HN