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

Paying for Open Source Contributions

formidable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: Paying for Open Source Contributions

#111

Post by yawaramin »

bhousel wrote: post #45
jevakallio wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author of the post here. Realistically, we can't pay people full engineering salaries to do random OSS. Our team can already contribute to OSS on their work time when it relates to their work, or our own projects, but for the personal interest/passion projects without direct benefit for us as a company, it doesn't scale. Doubly so when we have a pretty strict "no overtime" policy of working no more than 40 hours a we…

> Realistically, we can't pay people full engineering salaries to do random OSS. Why can't you? Professors get paid full professor salaries to do "random research". Doctors get paid full doctor salaries to treat "random illnesses". I expect if you looked a bit closer, you'll find that "Random OSS" is maintenance that makes the entire ecosystem possible. Would love to hear from some of your engineers what they are doi…

But professors are usually also required to teach classes or carry out other duties in return for getting research funding. They don't just get to randomly do whatever they want.

And doctors treating 'random illnesses' doesn't really work as an analogy–that would be more like if they could randomly decide to turn away patients they didn't 'want' to treat.

Re: Paying for Open Source Contributions

#112

Post by exogen »

verisimilitudes wrote: post #108

I'd be horrified about this Formidable company (What a name.) trying to claim ownership over anything I did in my free time that I was paid $20.00 for. >More recently, we’ve expanded the definition of contributing to include any social impact work within the field of technology Well, without clarification on my concerns, this would lead me to simply billing time around things such as answering questions in project IR…

Well they don't claim any ownership, so: problem solved! :)

There's a benefit to having the option to transfer ownership though when it makes sense: some projects become a support burden, or incur hosting costs, or have just lost your interest. Over time I've donated several of my personal projects to Formidable so that the company itself can officially maintain them (including during work hours, with the higher pay that entails, if you get assigned to work on it).

Re: Paying for Open Source Contributions

#113

Post by yawaramin »

bobblywobbles wrote: post #50

If I'm paid for open source, I'm going to lose any motivation to work on it more. The reason why I contribute to open source projects is BECAUSE I want to contribute for free. Put money in the deal and I'm no longer doing this work selflessly, but for self-interest instead.

There is no deal. Nobody is forcibly handing you money here. It is completely optional for you to participate. Think of it the same way as participating in your company's bonus rewards program like bonus.ly.

Re: Paying for Open Source Contributions

#115

Post by magicalhippo »

crysin wrote: post #66

I wish I was rich enough to view getting a bonus of $20.00 an hour for fun-time work as being more offensive than receiving nothing at all.

For me it would add stress. I would feel I had to be productive to earn it.

Of course, if it's not meant to be fun-time stuff, then it would be great.

Re: Paying for Open Source Contributions

#116

Post by stone-monkey »

jahewson wrote: post #104
crysin wrote: post #66

I wish I was rich enough to view getting a bonus of $20.00 an hour for fun-time work as being more offensive than receiving nothing at all.

Introducing a token payment such as this undermines the altruism of open source contribution. When people are motivated by altruism they don't want money. e.g. I would help my neighbor move some furniture for free, but I wouldn't do it if he offered to pay me $5.

I think the indirectness of the payment makes it acceptable somewhat. In your example, I wouldn't take the 5 dollar job either. But the difference there is in the directness of the relationship - the person receiving the benefit isn't the one paying you. It'd be more akin to your boss seeing you help your neighbor somehow and giving you twenty bucks in recognition of your deed after the fact.

Re: Paying for Open Source Contributions

#117

Post by austincheney »

nwsm wrote: post #93
austincheney wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had employers hire me and then not give me work to do leaving me with large swaths of time to work on my unpaid open source that they are using internally. It’s probably an ethical violation to use their office, time, and equipment to work on code they are not paying for (since it’s free and liberally licensed), but they absolutely know I’m doing it.

Your situation may not be serious enough to care, but you could be fired and the company could claim ownership of all your work, screwing over you and any project with a dependency to your OSS.

I have gone through something like that before. My first big corporate employer did not claim ownership but they slapped a patent on my first big personal project. Potential for sub licensing was more important than the work itself.

My solution to the concerns of ownership and distribution is to ensure a personal project is publicly disclosed, copyright is released, and the project is known to the employer before agreement of employment. It is typically not in a company’s interest to claim ownership of such projects where there is a maintenance liability and the potential for revenue and protection are unclear.

Re: Paying for Open Source Contributions

#118

Post by exogen »

est31 wrote: post #101
kylecesmat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Formidable employee here: To be quite honest we are compensated very fairly for our industry already and this program is not meant to ‘provide a living wage’ by any means. Instead, this is a ‘fair nod’ at the work some of us feel compelled and motivated to do after work hours. Not saying your perspective is wrong, just hopefully providing a bit more context about what this program means for someone who uses it.

You're an employee so you can answer the question: does Formidable take copyright ownership of the open source contributions provided by you? Do you have to ask your employer if you want to change licenses for your open source projects?

No and no.

Re: Paying for Open Source Contributions

#120

Post by yeahitslikethat »

GordonS wrote: post #109
jahewson wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Introducing a token payment such as this undermines the altruism of open source contribution. When people are motivated by altruism they don't want money. e.g. I would help my neighbor move some furniture for free, but I wouldn't do it if he offered to pay me $5.

I think the parent's point is that for a lot of people, especially those outside of SV, $20/h is more than a token payment. Sure, it's not going to make a westerner rich, but if we think to happiness instead of just money - it could well enable someone to make a living doing something that makes them happy . And of course there are several countries in which $20/h is a great wage. The OSS vs money problem is a hard o…

I think the point is that open soource developers should either do it for love or as a job that pays the bills.

If $20/hr pays the bills that's a good wage where it does. Arguably open source is MORE valuable so to suggest it earn it's creators less than other types of code is contrary to the vision of the open source movement.

Everyone has to eat and pay the bills.

Post reply on HN