If I may, a totally different way of funding open source projects is possible too, that doesn’t rely on charity mechanisms:
I will submit it to HN now as a link under the title “A Decentralized Model for Funding Open Source”. Look tor it there.
A new funding model for open source software
151–160 of 184 posts
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#152I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…
> the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. I disagree. What this need is a popular, well known and trustable organisation with enough money to invest into this. Github could be this organisation, but other could do that to, like Mozilla for example, or the FSF, Patreon, Facebook, Apple, maybe even google if they can sell a vision of them not shutting it down 6 monts later. What is needed is awarness of…
I am completely puzzled why you'd say that you need a "popular, well known and trustable organization with enough money to invest in this". How is the largest developer ecosystem in human history not the exact entity to do this?
But then you go on to suggest Facebook, Apple or Google... I'm not sure we're experiencing the same zeitgeist. Is Trump president where you are?
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, they don't even cover the cost of their credit card processing. They even used to match donations up to $5000. This is clearly not a profit center for them. What it is, actually, is excellent long-term business sense. They know that maintaining open source is draining, often thankless and demoralizing. Making sure that their best assets are provided for is just smart. But also, your attitude is wishful thinkin…
I just met a grandma that runs Linux. That surprised me. But it goes to show that sometimes wishful thinking can be achieved. If we make something as a community that can replace GitHub in convenience and spread awareness of the problems with GitHub being our main code hosting platform, we may be able to convince the wider community to use a platform for FOSS that is itself FOSS (which is what I believe ekianjo was t…
I mean, if GitLab and the rest of the also-rans can't make a dent in Github's market share, I don't understand where you think this market disrupter is going to emerge from unless there's a grand migration to something Next that Github inexplicably is not able to adapt to.
I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#154I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…
Many on HN have noticed, I have a serious philosophical issue with centralization and closed source software.
Every time I see people say “X is the only one who can do it, I hope X is gonna do it but they won’t” this is part of the problem.
I am going to post this link right now on HN, under the title “A decentralized model for funding open source” which an entirely decentralized approach to funding open source projects, journalism and more. And we are launching it Q4 of this year. Once we do, it will spur permissionless innovation.
Look, VOIP disrupted phone companies, Web disrupted AOL, drove many costs to almost zero. Just in the last 20 years. We can do the same here. Stop waiting “Please” for GitHub.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#155Change "open source projet" with "online newspaper" and everything applies.
I want to be able to give 20€/month to whatever news article I read with just one click. Instead of liking something, I want to be able to pay quality writings.
The browser is the perfect way to do this. I don't understand why Mozilla did not implement that.
Brave is close, but Brave wants us to view ads. I don't want to pay for a newspaper article talking about climate change through watching their ad for the latest diesel SUV. I want to pay them, but without filling my bank details for a monthly payment.
In France, the largest national newspaper lemonde.fr lets you subscribe in 1 click for 1€, but then you have to send them an tracked postal letter costing 7€ to cancel your subscription.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#156I like the idea but instead of pools going arbitrarily every which way or to the discretion of the donator, it should be automatically applied across that open source project's dependencies as well. If I am open source software A, and I make ample use of open source software B within my project, your pool donation should automatically apply some to B, relative to it's usage in the project.
This would fail with any project that uses NPM.
No, it would just have really small microdonations to each project.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#157I like the idea but instead of pools going arbitrarily every which way or to the discretion of the donator, it should be automatically applied across that open source project's dependencies as well. If I am open source software A, and I make ample use of open source software B within my project, your pool donation should automatically apply some to B, relative to it's usage in the project.
Distribution indeed seems to be tricky. Out of the myriad of utilities you use, e.g. React & a string sorting library. Should they both receive the same remuneration? That feels wrong.
No. The amount you donate, the majority goes to the primary project, since that's directly what you the user are receiving the value from, even if it's for the sake of the author pulling those dependencies together in a usable convenient fashion for you. The discussion simply becomes how much goes to the primary and how many goes downstream. I think 51% to the primary dependency at minimum as a starting point for debate.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. I disagree. What this need is a popular, well known and trustable organisation with enough money to invest into this. Github could be this organisation, but other could do that to, like Mozilla for example, or the FSF, Patreon, Facebook, Apple, maybe even google if they can sell a vision of them not shutting it down 6 monts later. What is needed is awarness of…
I am completely puzzled why you'd say that you need a "popular, well known and trustable organization with enough money to invest in this". How is the largest developer ecosystem in human history not the exact entity to do this? But then you go on to suggest Facebook, Apple or Google... I'm not sure we're experiencing the same zeitgeist. Is Trump president where you are?
> How is the largest developer ecosystem in human history not the exact entity to do this?
I'm not saying github can't do that, just disagreeing that github is the ONLY one capable of doing it.
> But then you go on to suggest Facebook, Apple or Google...
They are not worse than Microsoft in that regard. If Microsofts Github is acceptable, then so are them.
> Is Trump president where you are?
His ponyranch is not even on the same continent as me.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#159Two issues here: Models like these existed. Flattr and Liberapay. The latter had to switch away from the pooling model because turns out when you do the pooling you essentially become a bank and that’s difficult to do legally. Those models only work if users actually visit your website or your Github. I’m developing an app targeted at end users and I bet 90% of them have never been on Github or even know what that is…
But if you're targetting end users who haven't been to GitHub... aren't you just billing them for access to your app? Seems like a different problem to getting paid for OSS by people who do know how to find and use it for free.
Re: A new funding model for open source software
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this really a concern though? In this situation, adding a dependency to your project means making a decision to divert some of your funding to them as well. It gives an incentive to avoid adding unnecessary dependencies.
Workaround: fork all your dependencies with minimal if any changes and add them back to your main project. This allows you to cut-off the trickle-down funds in bad faith.
If you're willing to do the extra maintenance of keeping them up to date (or else on the hook for their issues) ... maybe that's 'ok'?
I don't mean that it's a service worth paying for, just that maybe it doesn't seem like it's worth the extra (presumably minor) cut of initial donation and people wouldn't really do it (more than once / for long / on a big project with significant donations) anyway.