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

231–240 of 352 posts

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

#231

Post by yallpendantools »

senko wrote: post #182

Let's rephrase this a bit so I'm sure I understand. Microsoft , a $3.4T company, should charge people for open source they didn't even write? Hell no. Hell no .

That's a mischaracterization of TFA's point. Your re-phrase makes it sound like the proposal is for filthy-rich Microsoft to pocket additional bucks from other people's open source work. Ostensibly, yes, Microsoft will be doing such action but the spirit of TFA is more like for Microsoft to act as a tax collector and, crucially, redistribute the collected tax back to the community---the money will not add to Microsoft's $3.4T-worth coffers!

Naturally this comment isn't a "fuck yes!" to the idea of Microsoft-as-tax-collector but if we're discussing TFA, let's not be needlessly cynical to the idea presented.

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

#232

Post by zephen »

bsnnkv wrote: post #158
rmah wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving something away for free and then whining that people use it for free confuses me. I mean, what did you think would happen?

> Giving something away for free and then whining that people use it for free confuses me. I mean, what did you think would happen? Such a weird thing to reply to someone who very publicly disavows the use of open source licensing for individuals

Such an aggressive response to a perfectly rational response to "Corporations who use and benefit from software should be made to pay for their use of that software."

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

#233

Post by zephen »

yallpendantools wrote: post #231
senko wrote: post #182

Let's rephrase this a bit so I'm sure I understand. Microsoft , a $3.4T company, should charge people for open source they didn't even write? Hell no. Hell no .

That's a mischaracterization of TFA's point. Your re-phrase makes it sound like the proposal is for filthy-rich Microsoft to pocket additional bucks from other people's open source work. Ostensibly, yes, Microsoft will be doing such action but the spirit of TFA is more like for Microsoft to act as a tax collector and, crucially, redistribute the collected tax back to the community---the money will not add to Microsof…

The comment you responded to may have incorrectly assumed that all the problems were self-evident, but apparently they are not.

> redistribute the collected tax back to the community---the money will not add to Microsoft's $3.4T-worth coffers!

Ummm, yeah, no.

Microsoft is a contributor to many open source projects, so it could, in fact, directly add to its own coffers.

And, the onus to pay for what was nominally free software could make paid software look more attractive, so it could indirectly push people to, e.g., office subscriptions.

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

#234

Post by bsnnkv »

zephen wrote: post #232
bsnnkv wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Giving something away for free and then whining that people use it for free confuses me. I mean, what did you think would happen? Such a weird thing to reply to someone who very publicly disavows the use of open source licensing for individuals

Such an aggressive response to a perfectly rational response to "Corporations who use and benefit from software should be made to pay for their use of that software."

> created: 46 days ago

Checks out

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

#235

Post by skybrian »

I wouldn't want some committee to decide who gets the money. It would make more sense to promote Github sponsorship. Suppose they occasionally gave all subscribers a $10 credit that they could use to sponsor whatever projects they want?

https://docs.github.com/en/sponsors/sponsoring-open-source-c...

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

#236

Post by zephen »

arjie wrote: post #101

This transformation of open-source into rent-seeking behaviour is quite distasteful to me. If you don't want to share your stuff without taxing everyone, then don't share it. Other licenses exist. You don't have to use MIT or the GPL. Meta has even demonstrated an alternative with the Llama 4 License which has exclusion criteria: > 2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Llama 4 version release date, the monthly a…

> If you don't want to share your stuff without taxing everyone, then don't share it. Other licenses exist. You don't have to use MIT or the GPL.

I agree. Yet some of my comments here have been met with downvoting and explanations that GPL licensing is a moral imperative, so there is certainly a contingent who would disagree.

> This is particularly rampant in the Rust community

This is interesting. Do you have examples? I am not cognizant enough of interactions there.

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

#237

Post by saxenaabhi »

skybrian wrote: post #235

I wouldn't want some committee to decide who gets the money. It would make more sense to promote Github sponsorship. Suppose they occasionally gave all subscribers a $10 credit that they could use to sponsor whatever projects they want? https://docs.github.com/en/sponsors/sponsoring-open-source-c...

yes and I think animejs and others used this modal effectively.

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

#238

Post by stogot »

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...

Spotify is creating their own AI slop music aren’t they?

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

#239

Post by derektank »

ranger_danger wrote: post #222
k2052 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chiming in as a former-ish member of the demographic you are just making stuff up about. There is no way to determine how much and how UBI would impact hikikomori because the demographic is inherently adverse to study. I personally know that some crucial open source work is maintained by people with schizoid-avoidant spectrum issues. I know a lot of them but I won't out them here. hikikomori are driven to be invisibl…

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/creative-exploration...

Love a headline that conforms to Betteridge’s law

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

#240

Post by derektank »

piekvorst wrote: post #229
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…

“Strong” social safety can be achieved only by enslaving producers who have to provide the ground for “many many” caring people. This is always the case. Consider Russian support of young families: the government takes the money from families without children and gives it to those who have. Personally, I cannot imagine a worse moral depravity than supporting this atrocity as a matter of justice. Capitalism is not “sl…

>the government takes the money from families without children and gives it to those who have

IDK, this seems perfectly reasonable if the state also provides an old age insurance / pension system for retirees. Without a younger generation of people paying into the system (i.e. the children of parents) these systems collapse. It seems appropriate to support the people that keep the government functioning.

Of course, I’m guessing you oppose systems like social security too, given your comment. I just find it odd that you can’t imagine anything worse than giving money to parents, given most governments give money to a lot of people, most of whom aren’t opting into anything as noble as parenthood.

Post reply on HN