GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by TomasBM » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 5:57 PM UTC

ranguna wrote: post #287

carlosjobim wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Work for free making open source code and giving it away for free. 2. Giant corporations take all my code without giving me anything. 3. Now I'm really angry! I should have gotten some money from them! 4. The government must force my neighbours to pay a salary to me! 5. Continue to work for free making open source code for giant corporations, so they can profit. How about instead?: 1. Don't work for free or give a…

I think you've missed the point again, it's more like this: 1. Work for free making open source code and giving it away for free. 2. Giant corporations take all my code without giving me anything. 3. Work for free making open source code and giving it away for free. If you can't go to step 3, then you are doing it wrong and need to change step 1 from "giving it away for free" to something like "giving it away for fre…

Although I agree with your overall point, there is a middle ground here: (commercially) non-free but open source software.

I believe that's where the biggest disagreement ITT lies. There are currently good ways to do FOSS, proprietary closed-source and free closed-source software development. But if the OSS is worth charging for (commercial) use, devs are left with asking for donations, SaaS or "pay me to work on this issue/feature".

There arguably should be better mechanisms to reward OSS development, even if the largest part of an OSSndev's motivation is intrinsic.

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

#322

Post by paulddraper » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 5:59 PM UTC

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…

Somehow no one talks about the incredible plumbing.

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

#323

Post by lasgawe » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 6:12 PM UTC

I am working on open source projects. I believe we need a better licensing approach for open source. The current license system only works if users actually care about licenses, but most do not. They simply copy the code and do whatever they want. Finding a solution to this problem is more important than charging money.

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

#324

Post by bloppe » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 7:04 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #73

securesaml wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed. And then they can shrug and move on with their respective days. If I open source something it's a gift to the commons, not a promise to work on it for free in perpetuity. I don't really care if someone tries to shame me for that, as there's nothing to be ashamed of.

I always chuckle at indignant GH comments on OSS projects. There should be a subreddit dedicated to them. Like a specific kind of r/choosingbeggars

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

#325

Post by nextlevelwizard » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 8:14 PM UTC

If you want to make a product and sell your software, make a product and sell it.

It is always people who make a thing for free then people find it useful and start using it then they start using that free and open source thing at work instead of writing a copy and that’s when the original person starts asking for donations and money.

The reason your project is popular is because it is free. If it wasn’t free we would have probably written our own or used something else.

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

#326

Post by spullara » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 8:15 PM UTC

shimman wrote: post #301

spullara wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't scamming anyone by using open source software made available to them for free.

The are purposely ruining the commons as any corporation does to society. Companies take advantage of open source all the time without ever truly giving back, which is why we should lobby the government to compel big tech into this. If it helps, voter sentiment against big tech is quite high and the profit margins that big tech has means there's a lot to plunder for the public. The only question is who do you want to…

this argument that companies are plundering something given away for free without taking it away from someone else is tiring.

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

#327

Post by nextlevelwizard » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 8:18 PM UTC

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…

What are these many companies? And how are these mysterious companies forcing you to work on their issues?

If you have companies name and shame them, but often these are just hypotheticals or few entities.

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

#328

Post by bloppe » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 8:18 PM UTC

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…

I support UBI, funded by high capital gains taxes, to offset the growing value of capital relative to labor due to ever-improving automation, but I think it's silly to think a significant number of people will ever be happy with UBI alone.

First of all, "baseline needs" are fluid. These days, electricity and internet are broadly considered baseline needs, but would have been unimaginable luxuries for previous generations. The future will inevitably bring new "baseline needs" we can hardly yet comprehend.

Secondly, the vast majority of people will never be satisfied with the bare minimum, no matter what that minimum is. If you have a friend who can afford fancy things, and you can't, then more likely than not, you will not be satisfied. It's also much easier to attract a partner if you're financially successful, for similar reasons. That's just human nature. Just because you don't have to worry about starving or succumbing to the elements does not mean people will stop competing with one another.

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

#329

Post by zigzag312 » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 8:51 PM UTC

saghm wrote: post #318

zigzag312 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But knowledge and academic research and industry R&D are key for progress though. All of which require hard work. You also don't balance equations in your examples. Your janitor goes to help a friend with rocketry, which seems like a net gain, but someone else now needs to stop helping a friend to replace that janitor's position. Otherwise researches at that facility where janitor had worked will have to do janitor's…

> But knowledge and academic research and industry R&D are key for progress though. All of which require hard work. Do you think that the people who do valuable research are doing it purely because of financial motivation, or is something else going on there? The point I was trying to make is that giving people a basic income so that they won't literally starve if they don't work isn't going to completely eliminate a…

Of course money is not the only thing that motivates people. But there's a lot of empirical evidence that it matters. A lot, unfortunately. And I say unfortunately as I would rather have it matter less. But me whishing it doesn't change the data.

UBI is a high concept pitch, that is memorable and catchy, but AFAIK it's not well supported either by psychological models or by empirical economics data. It gives some social safety net. Problem is that it gives a rather weak safety net. We can actually do better.

Can I ask you why exactly does it need to be UBI? If another system (more complex, with less sexy pitch) could provide a bigger safety net and have a more positive economic impact, wouldn't you rather choose that?

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

#330

Post by DerArzt » Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 8:57 PM UTC

bloppe wrote: post #328

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…

I support UBI, funded by high capital gains taxes, to offset the growing value of capital relative to labor due to ever-improving automation, but I think it's silly to think a significant number of people will ever be happy with UBI alone. First of all, "baseline needs" are fluid. These days, electricity and internet are broadly considered baseline needs, but would have been unimaginable luxuries for previous generat…

> The vast majority of people will never be satisfied with the bare minimum

Isn't that a benefit for UBI? If everyone's basic needs are met and they want more, nothing would stop them from taking a job and making more money right?