Live data from Hacker News

GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

blog.greg.technology

41–50 of 352 posts

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is more so maintenance. The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues. However many companies will dump these issues to the maintainer and take it for granted when they are resolved. It's not a sustainable model, and will lead to burnout/unmaintained libraries. If the companies don't have the engineering resources/specialization to com…

It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.

(And on the flipside, nothing is owed for a bugfix the maintainer made out of their own free will. Again, a gift.)

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#42
post #9
post #5

I disagree, due to github copilot and other AI crap Microsoft is adding to GitHub, they should pay us 5 USD per month.

Did you read the article? Though I can agree the title is bait.

Yes I read it, but still, charging me $1 so M/S can spy on what I do and make money off of it by selling my work to large corporations is wrong.

But if they really wanted to do what the article says, create a project and people can donate what the want. For example, if M/S sends me $5 per month, I can redirect it to various open source projects instead.

When I was on GH, I did donate a little per month to 2 projects, it was a nice way to do that. But I moved off because I do not want to give M/S more personal information (like my Cell #), so I send a few $ to them using other means.

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#43
$1 USD is ~90 Indian Rupees, 1450 Argentinian Peso or over 1 million Iranian Rial [1]. In some places, $1 USD could be a week's work. On the collection side, you could be seriously over-charging people. On the distribution side, you could be seriously overpaying people for their work - and encourage scams, etc.

> GitHub should charge every org $1 more per user per month and direct it into an Open Source fund, held in escrow.

Sure. It'll be some charity, then somebody gets paid $200k+ per year to distribute what remains after they've taken the majority, all whilst avoiding most taxes. To receive the money the person has to ID themselves, financial background checks need to be done, a minimum amount needs to be reached before a payment is made, and then after passing through multiple wanting hands, they end up with a fraction.

> Those funds would then be distributed by usage - every mention in a package.json or requirements.txt gets you a piece of the pie.

What even is "usage"? How many times it appears in a number of repos? How many users there are of the project? Is the usefulness and value of a project limited to the number of people that directly use it?

> Or don’t! Let’s not do anything! People’s code and efforts - fueling incredibly critical bits of infrastructure all around the world - should just be up for grabs. Haha! Suckers!

> Anyway, you all smarter than me people can figure it out. I just cannot accept that what we have is “GOOD”. xx

It's entirely possible you can make things worse by avoiding doing nothing. Sometimes in life you have to pick the lesser of evils.

[1] https://www.x-rates.com/table/?from=USD&amount=1

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#44

The first order effect of this would be great, but the following onslaught of schlinkert spam would be devastating- its bad enough now with people making garbage dependencies and sneaking them in everywhere just for clout

It might make the maintainers of if the rest of the pie vigilant for dependency spam that would cut into their end.

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#45

>it is not okay to consider that this labor fell from the sky and is a gift, and that the people/person behind are just doing it for their own enjoyments Yes it absolutely is. That is the exact social contract people 100% willingly enter by releasing something as Free and Open Source. They do give it as a gift, in exchange for maybe the tiny bit of niche recognition that comes with it, and often times out of simple g…

It's crazy to expect someone to pay for something that you're giving them for free.

Correct, but if there's a bug/enhancement/support they want, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for compensation for it.

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#46

> it is not okay to consider that this labor fell from the sky and is a gift, and that the people/person behind are just doing it for their own enjoyments. I am. I enjoy making things, and it's even better when others enjoy them. Just because you have expectations that you should be compensated for everything line of code you write; doesn't make it ubiquitous, nor should your expectations be considered the default. I…

I agree with you, but I do think we have a bit of a problem in which an open source creator makes something and then suddenly finds themselves accidentally having created a load-bearing component that is not only used by a lot of people and companies, but where people are demanding that bugs be fixed, etc., and we lack great models for helping transition it from "I do this for fun, might fix the bug if I ever feel like it" to " I respect that this has become a critical dependency and we will find a way to make it someone's job to make it more like a product".

I gather that the open source maintainers who have found themselves in this situation sometimes get very unhappy about it, and I can see why -- it's not like they woke up one day and suddenly had a critical component on their hands, it kind of evolved over time and after a while they're like "uhoh, I don't think this is what I signed up for"

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is more so maintenance. The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues. However many companies will dump these issues to the maintainer and take it for granted when they are resolved. It's not a sustainable model, and will lead to burnout/unmaintained libraries. If the companies don't have the engineering resources/specialization to com…

It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.

Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed.

And it leads to unmaintained libraries, since companies don't want to pay.

At some point, is open sourcing your work a liability?

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.

(And on the flipside, nothing is owed for a bugfix the maintainer made out of their own free will. Again, a gift.)

The problem is lots of open source is unmaintained/insecure, and there aren't any security engineers on those open source libraries.

For the library to be secure, there needs to be funding, not by magic and expecting maintainers will do stuff on there free will.

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is more so maintenance. The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues. However many companies will dump these issues to the maintainer and take it for granted when they are resolved. It's not a sustainable model, and will lead to burnout/unmaintained libraries. If the companies don't have the engineering resources/specialization to com…

It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.

I 100% agree with this. It also is 100% OK to fork aggressively and patch yourself.

Re: GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.

Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed. And it leads to unmaintained libraries, since companies don't want to pay. At some point, is open sourcing your work a liability?

Help normalize saying no? As an OSS maintainer, the sense of entitlement many have is quite frustrating. After years in OSS, I have built up a thick skin and am fine saying no, but many aren't.
Post reply on HN