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

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

blog.greg.technology

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 352 posts

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

#221

Post by tracerbulletx »

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…

People really want to have a business with none of the work of running a business. They want to make something useful, then have people just pay them for it without any of the things that go into operating a business. In a perfect world value would directly correlate to income, but it isn't even close to being the case, there's a lot of coercion and control of supply that goes into owning a business.

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

#222

Post by ranger_danger »

k2052 wrote: post #213
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hikikomori [1] or NEETs ought to be a hotbed of creative works if your hypothesis is true. And they aren't, plain and simple. There is effectively zero evidence suggesting a population on UBI will result in some sort of outpouring of creativity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori and it's not a phenomenon limited to Japan.

Chiming in as a former-ish member of the demographic you are just making stuff up about. There is no way to determine how much and how UBI would impact hikikomori because the demographic is inherently adverse to study. I personally know that some crucial open source work is maintained by people with schizoid-avoidant spectrum issues. I know a lot of them but I won't out them here. hikikomori are driven to be invisibl…

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/creative-exploration...

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

#223

Post by ranger_danger »

carlosjobim wrote: post #219
whattheheckheck wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And everyone can get stuck with big corporation proprietary software that they have no idea how it runs or what it does under the hood

You can then make your own software. Nobody owes you free software.

You're not wrong, but I think it is increasingly harder (and perhaps socially taboo) to stay far away from proprietary software while still being part of a functioning society.

FOSS zealots love to dunk on capitalism, but unless you're prepared to go off-grid and live in the woods, and try to convince other people to be poor along with you, you might be very lonely.

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

#224

Post by ranger_danger »

ericmay wrote: post #166
_ache_ wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just read the title don't you? > GitHub should charge every org $1 more per user per month It's about org, not about every single person using Github. The idea is basic and should have been written in the article. When a contributor release FOSS, it's fair to compensate if you business rely on it. A contributor wouldn't like a free for personal use either. The ideal license is the Unreal one free for « Individual…

> When a contributor release FOSS, it's fair to compensate if you business rely on it. Nope. Put it in the license, sell the software, or work for free, but stop complaining about it. It's nice if businesses who benefit from specific software packages want to pay or show support, but it's not nice to release something "for free" but then jump on a moral grandstand and demand everyone pay so you can feel good about yo…

You're not wrong, but I feel like a lot of people are hung up on the purism of the OSI definition, and a license that's not so blessed may prevent a project from gaining significant traction, if that is part of their goal.

I think it would be nice if there were a license that was more widely accepted that introduced a monetary component that could compensate the developer(s).

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

#225

Post by Loughla »

nickff wrote: post #126
remove-resolve wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who are specifically not employed because they aren't motivated to do anything at all don't seem to be the best sample for what average people could do if they had more free time during their waking hours.

It seems unlikely that the most motivated people will take up UBI; the most likely UBI recipients are those who are marginally employed, and likely marginally motivated.

What do you think UBI is and how do you think it works? Honestly.

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

#226

Post by zephen »

chrysoprace wrote: post #205
dgacmu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but I do think we have a bit of a problem in which an open source creator makes something and then suddenly finds themselves accidentally having created a load-bearing component that is not only used by a lot of people and companies, but where people are demanding that bugs be fixed, etc., and we lack great models for helping transition it from "I do this for fun, might fix the bug if I ever feel li…

In that case the maintainer needs to have some self-restraint and accept that they don't owe them anything. If somebody depends on the maintainer's package for a critical component then they should consider paying them and possibly drawing up an explicit contract. That's what we did at my work for a critical open source component, where we paid the maintainer to add several features we needed.

It's commendable that your organization did this.

But...

> the maintainer needs to have some self-restraint and accept that they don't owe them anything.

Assumes (especially in cases where "maintainer == original author" psychological capabilities that simply might not exist in the maintainer.

I don't know of a good way to deal with this, other than to be kind and try to notice potential signs of impeding burn-out before an implosion.

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

#227

Post by yallpendantools »

paul_h wrote: post #127

How bold to start with "Listen to me" then jump into something that doesn't make much economic sense and has not been properly considered

In fairness TFA:

> Hence, a solution. Or an idea, really. Incredibly half-baked. Poke all the holes you want. It’s very unwrought and muy unripe.

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

#229

Post by piekvorst »

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…

“Strong” social safety can be achieved only by enslaving producers who have to provide the ground for “many many” caring people. This is always the case. Consider Russian support of young families: the government takes the money from families without children and gives it to those who have. Personally, I cannot imagine a worse moral depravity than supporting this atrocity as a matter of justice.

Capitalism is not “slavery with extra steps,” it’s freedom in a fragile world repleted with conflicting goals. Just because people don’t agree with your goals doesn’t make you a slave.

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

#230

Post by majorchord »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #196
lifetimerubyist wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the expectation of FOSS is that code is provided AS-IS with NO WARRANTY because that’s what it says in the license.

People's expectations are not constrained by the license. They are free to exercise a sense of entitlement beyond the terms of the contract and empirically they often do. The license does not prohibit them from engaging with the authors or maintainers for any reason whatsoever, including requesting free labor. You could perhaps add a clause in the license that restricts this behavior but then it would no longer be FO…

Perhaps they simply meant the legal expectations are constrained by the license.
Post reply on HN