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

Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

discuss.python.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 192 posts

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#111

Post by teh64 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #102
teh64 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2019 [0] they only had 2.5 million of total expenses, of which 75% was pycon. So even if everything else was on "outreach" (it was not), that would only be $642,500, which is not "several million a year". In 2020 [1] 48.1% went to "Packaging Work Group/Infrastructure/Other" (I assume because in person pycon was canceled). I also checked 2021 [2], which was 32.7% pycon and 31.2% pip etc... Also 2022 [3], 57.8% pyco…

As mentioned covid changed everything, so please stop pulling figures from that once in a lifetime event.

I have looked at 2018-2016, where the expenses are almost completely the main pycon and more local pycons. Also sponserships like "Pallets group, which maintains projects such as Flask and Jinja" (2018). Everything other than the main pycon is less than 1 million dollars combined in expenses.

I feel it is important to look at the facts, not just vibes.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#112

Post by Foxboron »

ajross wrote: post #92
Foxboron wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but for almost any economically important project all the major contributors and maintainers are on the payroll of one of the big tech interests or a foundation funded by them. "almost" is the load bearing word here, and/or a weasel word. Define what an "economically important project" is. > Also just to be clear: node is filled with povertyware and you should be extremely careful what you grab from npm. Is "povert…

> "almost" is the load bearing word here, and/or a weasel word. Define what an "economically important project" is. Linux, clang, python, react, blink, v8, openssl... You know what I mean. I stand by what I said. Do you have a counterexample you think is clearly unfunded? They exist[1], but they're rare. > Is "povertyware" what we call software written by people and released for free now? It's software subject to eco…

> Linux, clang, python, react, blink, v8, openssl... You know what I mean. I stand by what I said. Do you have a counterexample you think is clearly unfunded? They exist[1], but they're rare.

For Linux "all the major contributors and maintainers are on the payroll of one of the big tech interests or a foundation funded by them" is simply not true. It's trivial to prove this by just looking at the maintainers of the subsystems. Making this claim is nonsense to begin with.

Same is true for several major contributors to the Python compiler and subsequent libraries as well.

You will move the goalpost by trying to narrow down what "major contributor" means.

> It's software subject to economic coercion owing to the lack of means of its maintainership. It's 100% fine for you to write and release software for free, but if a third party bets their own product on it they're subject to an attack where I hand you $7M to look the other way while I borrow your shell.

So without knowing anyone you are making a value judgement on the (probable?) lack of ethics? Excuse me?

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#113

Post by kolbe »

ajross wrote: post #53
godzillabrennus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big Tech should really be footing the bill here as well as large established VC firms.

To a large extent they do and always have. It's not as broad or fair as it should be[1], but for almost any economically important project all the major contributors and maintainers are on the payroll of one of the big tech interests or a foundation funded by them. The hippies writing that software may not be compensated at the level you'd expect given the value they provide, but they'll never go hungry. [1] LLVM and…

> LLVM and Linux get more cash than they can spend. GNU stuff is comparatively impoverished because everyone assumes they'd do it for free anyway. Stuff that ships on a Canonical desktop or RHEL default install gets lots of cash but community favorites like KDE need to make their own way, etc... Also just to be clear: node is filled with povertyware and you should be extremely careful what you grab from npm.

This is often the problem with charity in general. It's hard to find good organizations that actually need your money. Great ones self-sustain on their own revenue. Good ones are saturated with donations from their own users. There's just a small sliver of projects that are awesome, and could productively use financial support. From personal experience, identifying these is often far more costly than the act of writing a check.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#114

Post by mixmastamyk »

nedbat wrote: post #108
mixmastamyk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, outreach before investing in packaging. It’s not that outreach is bad but that packaging was crumbling.

I'm not sure how you got to "before" here. The PSF runs PyPI, organizes the Python Packaging Authority, supports sprints and standardization efforts, funds developers in residence and so on. Packaging is improving, partly because of those efforts. It's not an either/or.

https://devclass.com/2025/03/10/pypi-repository-takes-steps-...

    > CPython core developer Paul Moore described his involvement in the
    > packaging community and said: “it’s struggling under the weight of its own
    > popularity … the individuals involved are doing their best under what are
    > frankly near-impossible conditions.”

    > Moore questioned whether the fact that so many businesses now depend on
    > Python and PyPI meant that “maybe a purely volunteer basis simply can’t
    > work any more,” though he hoped this is not the case.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#115

Post by geodel »

twoquestions wrote: post #40

Glad to see Anthropic continuing to invest in the longevity and quality of their open-source dependencies! If you missed it, they bought Bun a while back, which is what Claude Code is built in: https://bun.sh/blog/bun-joins-anthropic

Wow. Just came to know from your comment. Not sure if it was covered here on HN. I totally missed it.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#116

Post by nedbat »

teh64 wrote: post #111
mixmastamyk wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned covid changed everything, so please stop pulling figures from that once in a lifetime event.

I have looked at 2018-2016, where the expenses are almost completely the main pycon and more local pycons. Also sponserships like "Pallets group, which maintains projects such as Flask and Jinja" (2018). Everything other than the main pycon is less than 1 million dollars combined in expenses. I feel it is important to look at the facts, not just vibes.

> Also sponserships like "Pallets group ...

Those are "fiscal sponsorships" meaning the PSF holds money for other organizations. The PSF is not funding Pallets (or Boston Python or North Bay Python, etc, etc). They accept money earmarked for those organizations and provide administrative support. Details: https://www.python.org/psf/fiscal-sponsorees/

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#117

Post by ajross »

Foxboron wrote: post #112
ajross wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "almost" is the load bearing word here, and/or a weasel word. Define what an "economically important project" is. Linux, clang, python, react, blink, v8, openssl... You know what I mean. I stand by what I said. Do you have a counterexample you think is clearly unfunded? They exist[1], but they're rare. > Is "povertyware" what we call software written by people and released for free now? It's software subject to eco…

> Linux, clang, python, react, blink, v8, openssl... You know what I mean. I stand by what I said. Do you have a counterexample you think is clearly unfunded? They exist[1], but they're rare. For Linux "all the major contributors and maintainers are on the payroll of one of the big tech interests or a foundation funded by them" is simply not true. It's trivial to prove this by just looking at the maintainers of the s…

> You will move the goalpost

I can't move the goalpost if you won't produce a ball. Who exactly are you thinking of that needs a job but doesn't have one?

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#118

Post by nedbat »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #114
nedbat wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how you got to "before" here. The PSF runs PyPI, organizes the Python Packaging Authority, supports sprints and standardization efforts, funds developers in residence and so on. Packaging is improving, partly because of those efforts. It's not an either/or.

https://devclass.com/2025/03/10/pypi-repository-takes-steps-... > CPython core developer Paul Moore described his involvement in the > packaging community and said: “it’s struggling under the weight of its own > popularity … the individuals involved are doing their best under what are > frankly near-impossible conditions.” > Moore questioned whether the fact that so many businesses now depend on > Python and PyPI mea…

Yes, it could use more funding. Glad to see that Anthropic is helping. It's still not an either/or situation. The PSF would not be fulfilling their mission if they only funded packaging until packaging was "solved" (whatever that might mean) and only then did they fund outreach.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#119

Post by TrainedMonkey »

alain94040 wrote: post #90
godzillabrennus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big Tech should really be footing the bill here as well as large established VC firms.

Really simple fix: social pressure and expectations should be that every company that uses open source pays a fixed amount of their revenue (is 0.1% low enough to be negligible for the companies). Companies that don't should shunned.

The problem is, people who make that decision can either spend 0.1% to support open source and get return on investment in terms of better business performance in 2-3 business years. Or they could pay themselves 0.1% in bonuses right now and get an immediate return.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#120

Post by jszymborski »

alain94040 wrote: post #90
godzillabrennus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big Tech should really be footing the bill here as well as large established VC firms.

Really simple fix: social pressure and expectations should be that every company that uses open source pays a fixed amount of their revenue (is 0.1% low enough to be negligible for the companies). Companies that don't should shunned.

How about we skip the social pressure and levy a tax on them that is used to shore up a sovereign fund for OSS.
Post reply on HN