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

Open Source Maintenance Fee

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 260 posts

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#181

Post by [deleted] »

digianarchist wrote: post #34
thinkmassive wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most powerful set of tools available to create your Windows installation experience. Open Source since 2004!

It's shocking to me that Microsoft aren't heavily involved with the project considering it's one of the fundamental frameworks for releasing software on Windows. I've had the displeasure of using Wix and it's an incredibly complicated and poorly documented platform that had us reaching for paid competitors in order to get our installer shipped. I realized shortly after that it's not really Wix's fault. Windows is squ…

[deleted]

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#182

Post by foxglacier »

I've always treated WiX as one of those "finished" projects that never needs updating. I'm still using some old version from 10-20 years ago. What could they possibly be still changing? Didn't it just work already?

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#184

Post by Towaway69 »

WorldMaker wrote: post #83
guluarte wrote: post #62

I haven't fully read it yet, but it would be great if GitHub had "bounties" where users could submit an issue/request with a bounty attached.

I think the issue with bounties is that to do a proper bounty program you want a third-party escrow agent that can decide when the issue/request has been addressed sufficiently to warrant paying the bounty. I don't think GitHub wants to be directly in that business as a third-party escrow agent hiring people to review issues/requests versus changelogs, but they probably could find ways to help people find such third-…

What GitHub could enforce is that someone creating an issue is a sponsor.

This would then be a checkbox in the settings of the repo “only sponsors can create issues? Yes/no”

As I understand it, this is something that the OSMF enforces - not sponsor, no issue creation.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#185

Post by pabs3 »

robmensching wrote: post #162
shthed wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do any other projects use this too? Is this just Wix Toolkit?

I have seen some other projects show interest and a few have adopted it. I've not checked in with any of them. The Open Source Maintenance Fee is pretty new, and I've not been promoting it for use by other Open Source projects (yet) because I want to resolve any "OSMF bugs" using my project (WiX Toolset). After the bugs are worked out, then I'll recommend it more widely and we'll see if it catches on then. I've had a…

Is the OSMF EULA compatible with the GNU GPL family of licenses?

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#187

Post by jononor »

monocularvision wrote: post #116
thayne wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complicated. Reviewing a PR takes time and effort, and the maintainer may not want to do that for a feature that mainly benefits a company that isn't paying the maintenance fee. OTOH, as a maintainer, if a company finds a bug that would impact a lot of users, I would want them to report it, regardless of their payment status. But saying something like "Issues from paying customers/donors have higher priority" is…

I guess the point is if someone discovers a bug and opens a PR to fix it, then that person is, in a way, also a maintainer. They are “paying” for the maintanence of the project in time and effort.

I would only say that they have become maintainers if they consistently do so, over time. Including helping out in areas which is not directly useful to them. And thinking about the whole picture, not just individual features and bugs. And also putting in the time when it is needed, even though other obligations are pulling at them. Of course it is somewhat of a continiuum. And it always starts with being a contributor. So that is on the right path.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#188

Post by cadamsdotcom »

Brilliant idea.

Source code is frozen in time. Especially as the software world moves faster, software depreciates in value / rots over time. Separately and equally importantly, depending on the use, the same source code can be a fun hobby or be the centerpiece of a giant business.

This model lets open source flourish while reflecting those realities. From what I see, a business has the option of using the software without paying - they of course wouldn’t get maintenance. They could keep people on staff supporting it or just get support this way - and this way is far cheaper.

Let’s see how it plays out! Could become industry standard.

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#189

Post by jononor »

aetherspawn wrote: post #126
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your point. In the name of promoting basic numeracy: """ Sign up for GitHub Sponsorship and create the tiers: Small organization ( 100 people): $60/mo """ You are beyond 'cash strapped' if $10/month for something as fundamental as this breaks the bank. The fully loaded cost of a single US software developer is already above $100/hour.

It’s $10/mo and then like 15min/$50/mo in everyone’s time in admin chasing down and filing receipts, reconciling to bank statements, etc. If you’re a founder doing your own finances, well every additional little monthly charge even if it’s just $1 is quite annoying: Filing and reconciling 12 receipts takes say 1 hour per year, what if you’re using 20 dependencies? That’s an extra 3-5 days per annum of admin.

One nice thing about GitHub sponsorship is that there is only one bill for the sponsor, and one can support NN projects/creators there. I think it is even bundled with the regular Github invoice?

Re: Open Source Maintenance Fee

#190

Post by jononor »

kindkang2024 wrote: post #173

Open-source projects often function like a system of charity and honor. The honor goes to the contributors, while the charitable benefits flow to those who can use it to generate revenue. This model works well for both parties and indirectly benefits humanity. However, I personally believe—perhaps naively—that the charity could be directed toward all humans in a more direct and obvious way. For example, when a projec…

I like the idea. But it is missing something to actually get money out of companies, I think? Because even when there are people in a company that are nominally willing to pay, there is usually so much friction/hassle to actually get money out of a company - that it most often ends up not happening for open source. Unless there is something that "forces" them.
Post reply on HN