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

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

blog.greg.technology

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 352 posts

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

#51

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

pixelready wrote: post #36
grayhatter wrote: post #11

> 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 think this is the piece so many that are stuck in the hustle culture mindset miss, and why they are so quick to dismiss anything like UBI or a strong social safety net that might “reduce people’s motivation”. There are many many creative, caring people that are motivated to create things or care for each other for the sake of it, not for some financial reward. Imagine the incredible programs, websites, games, craft…

The hikikomori[1] or NEETs ought to be a hotbed of creative works if your hypothesis is true. And they aren't, plain and simple.

There is effectively zero evidence suggesting a population on UBI will result in some sort of outpouring of creativity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori and it's not a phenomenon limited to Japan.

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

#54

Post by gregsadetsky »

grayhatter wrote: post #11

> 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…

My apologies - you’re correct. I didn’t mean that as “you should never expect anyone to have contributed code for free/the pleasure/for the puzzle solving aspect”. I do it all of the time.

I meant - it’s unfair to consider that because this labor “fell from the sky”, you should just accept it - and as others have said, in the case of projects that become popular, that the burden should just automatically fall on the shoulders of someone who happened to share code “for free”.

If/when someone ends up becoming responsible for work they hadn’t necessarily signed up for (who signs up for burnout?) - it’s ok/necessary/mandatory to see how everyone (and or Nvidia/Google/OpenAI etc) can, like, help.

My insistence is on the opt-out nature of this so that people who would be ok being compensated don't have to beg.

Consider how the xz malware situation happened [0]. Or the header & question 8 from the FAQ for PocketBase [1].

[0] https://x.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500

[1] https://pocketbase.io/faq/

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

#57

Post by Lramseyer »

> every mention in a package.json or requirements.txt

OK, what about those of us who aren't writing libraries?

As a personal anecdote, the amount of opportunities that have been opened up to me as a result of my open source project are worth way more than any $1 per mention or user.

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

#60

Post by gregsadetsky »

dbbk wrote: post #58

This... exists? Did they even search for it? https://github.com/open-source/sponsors

Yes, it's a step in the right direction.

However it is opt-in aka "Launch a page in minutes and showcase Sponsors buttons on your GitHub profile and repositories". That's effort & friction and only simplifies the "begging" aspect that I am (strongly) reacting to.

https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v11/commands/npm-fund will also "list all dependencies that are looking for funding in a tree structure"

I want the step (or 5 steps) after that. Charge first, then distribute.

Post reply on HN