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

191–200 of 352 posts

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

#191

Post by spullara »

skinnymuch wrote: post #112
spullara wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't want to give your software away for free, don't give your software away for free. When they decide it is in their best interest to pay for it they will, i.e. support, bug fixes, changes. If you make open source software that just works they are unlikely to start writing checks nor should there be any expectation that they do that.

That is not how people and society function. The status quo and culture is that open source is good for society and all. You are not told about why big corporations can use all this code for free. You’re actually told you’re doing a good deed by making code open source. Then you jump on to a place like Reddit or HN and you have people mostly supporting the status quo. Of course people are going to do open source more…

It certainly no other persons fault than the person that wrote the software and gave it away. Making them out to be the victim in all this is ridiculous.

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

#192

Post by captn3m0 »

primitivesuave wrote: post #32

If this actually happens, get ready for an avalanche of AI-generated garbage code that exists for the sole purpose of boosting a scammer's metrics, so they can maximize their slice of the pie with the minimum amount of effort. Spotify is dealing with this same issue around AI-generated music [1]. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lesliekatz/2024/09/08/man-charg...

Tea.xyz already slopped this: https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=teaxyz-spam

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

#193

Post by lifetimerubyist »

securesaml wrote: post #35
Dilettante_ wrote: post #10

>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…

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…

No the expectation of FOSS is that code is provided AS-IS with NO WARRANTY because that’s what it says in the license.

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

#194

Post by franciscop »

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 was going to comment exactly the same thing, thanks for expressing it so well and here's my upvote. I think part of why I wanted to comment the same, is that for me this IS exactly the reason I make open source! It is my gift for everyone, please use it well.

I do think it would be nice to get paid anything at all, but that wouldn't change at all how I do things/release code. In fact, unless it'd be really no-strings-attached, I'd prefer to keep the current arrangement than being paid a pittance per month and then have extra obligations.

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

#195

Post by davidhyde »

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…

Yes and yes. I make open source software because I fundamentally enjoy the act of learning something new and then applying that knowledge by making something. I publish it for the ego boost only. I am equally likely to be irritated by contributions than to be excited by them. My day job contributions are up for scrutiny but the personal projects I publish on github are my island, my sovereign ground. As exciting as PR interest is, sometimes I don’t really want someone to paint over my painting. It’s mine after all. I obviously don’t speak for all open source contributors but I don’t want compensation. If someone wants to fork my work and turn it into a community then they are free to do so as a result of my licensing choice. If the first few contributions I receive are pleasant and someone takes over then that is great too. My point is that not all creators are aggregators. Leave us alone and stop complaining. We gave it away for free after all.

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

#196

Post by jandrewrogers »

lifetimerubyist wrote: post #193
securesaml wrote: post #35

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…

No the expectation of FOSS is that code is provided AS-IS with NO WARRANTY because that’s what it says in the license.

People's expectations are not constrained by the license. They are free to exercise a sense of entitlement beyond the terms of the contract and empirically they often do. The license does not prohibit them from engaging with the authors or maintainers for any reason whatsoever, including requesting free labor.

You could perhaps add a clause in the license that restricts this behavior but then it would no longer be FOSS.

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

#198

Post by superfrank »

nottorp wrote: post #83
Unfunkyufo wrote: post #71

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the solution to the open source funding problem is to force people to pay for it. I think that goes against the spirit of open source. If there is forced payment, or even the expectation of payment, then we're not really doing the whole original open source thing, we're just doing bad source available commercial-ish software. I think the solution is for people to understand that…

There's also the problem of who decides who gets paid? If they pay by popularity most of my $1 would go to javascript. I'd rather it went to libraries I actually use.

Congratulations everyone! We just reinvented taxes!

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

#199

Post by nl »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #51
pixelready wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The hikikomori[1] or NEETs ought to be a hotbed of creative works if your hypothesis is true.

This seems a non-sequitur. People whose motivation is isolation are unlikely to try to generate anything for other people.

But your general idea is correct - is there group where motivated people don't need to worry about money?

Well yes - we see this in artist colonies and indeed in entrepreneurial retreats like https://www.recurse.com/

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

#200

Post by sylos »

nickff wrote: post #125
anonymous908213 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, hikikomori are a hotbed of creative works, though. Your entire premise is false. I don't know that you could get reliable statistics proving this claim, but Japan likely has the highest number of creatives per capita of any country in the world, and a ton of them are NEETs who spend their time drawing fanart or writing trashy webnovels. The vast majority of this creative work isn't commercially successful, of cou…

Can it really be a 'hotbed' if there is no demand (or even maybe awareness) of the works? That just seems like a hobby done for selfish reasons.

All hobbies are selfish, that's kinda the point?
Post reply on HN