Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.greg.technology

251–260 of 352 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There are many many creative, caring people that are motivated to create things or care for each other for the sake of it Very true. In a UBU world I have no doubt we’d have many exciting libraries, lots of pottery, and many books. But I’ve never met anyone passionate about collecting bins, development of accounting tooling, or pricing of phone insurance. You need rewards to allocate people effectively, because “pa…

> But I’ve never met anyone passionate about collecting bins, development of accounting tooling, or pricing of phone insurance. You need rewards to allocate people effectively, because “passion” is random and not related to what people actually need

You're making the mistake of conflating UBI with "no one works anymore". This is a silly mistake to make. It's like believing that providing a universal healthcare service that provides basic care to everyone somehow meant supply and demand for private health services would be eliminated. In the meantime, look at pretty much any European country which already provides free universal healthcare.

Listen, UBI stands for Universal Basic Income. Universal means everyone gets it, Income means an inflow of cash, and Basic means it's not much, just enough to cover basic needs. Think of a kind of unemployment benefit for all that doesn't go away once you find a job. Once you get a job, you get paid an income that supplements your basic income. That's it. The biggest impact is that if you find yourself out of a job, you still get an inflow of cache that allows you to meet basic needs.

UBIs does change the economy. For example, most if not all poverty-mitigation policies can be effectively replaced by UBI. Instead of food stamps, use your income to buy food. There's no longer a pressing need for unemployment benefits if you already are guaranteed a basic income.

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

#252
post #164
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did you mean to write the opposite of what you wrote?

Accidentally posted in the middle of an edit; corrected now, thanks.

You posted the edit over 7 hours ago and it still doesn't make sense. You should check what the U in UBI stands for.

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

#253
post #236
post #101

This transformation of open-source into rent-seeking behaviour is quite distasteful to me. If you don't want to share your stuff without taxing everyone, then don't share it. Other licenses exist. You don't have to use MIT or the GPL. Meta has even demonstrated an alternative with the Llama 4 License which has exclusion criteria: > 2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Llama 4 version release date, the monthly a…

> If you don't want to share your stuff without taxing everyone, then don't share it. Other licenses exist. You don't have to use MIT or the GPL. I agree. Yet some of my comments here have been met with downvoting and explanations that GPL licensing is a moral imperative, so there is certainly a contingent who would disagree. > This is particularly rampant in the Rust community This is interesting. Do you have exampl…

Yeah, there's a HN comment where someone is complaining about a related concept but in the linked threads there you have a lot of these donation inquisitors. I shy away from any such community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048954

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

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

> 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.

It's funny how you chose to frame groups as "NEET", but you somehow failed to refer to "aspiring artist" or "aspiring musician" or "aspiring novelist". I mean "aspiring artist" already implies engaging in an activity albeit not professionally or reaching success.

You also somehow failed to refer to "amateur artist". As if not enjoying enough success to live comfortably with your art to the point of requiring to hold a job to pay rent is something that would validate your argument.

I'm not sure you are even aware of the fact that most of the mainstream artists you see around are not even professional, in the sense that in spite of their success and touring they still need to hold a job to make ends meet. Check out any summer festival, pick any random non-headliner band, and see how many members hold jobs, and had to take time off to go touring. Even some music legends have a history of holding humble jobs at least up to the time they made it. See Black Sabbath's Tony Iommi, who famously lost a couple of fingers in an industrial accident while working at a sheet metal factory.

It's not just music, either. Luminaries like Fernando Pessoa could very well be classified as the ultimate NEET as he spent years of his early life not in education, employment, or training.

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

#255
I do not agree. It should not be opt-out. If you want funding, make it opt-in. I do not want to be paid for it, and I also do not want to pay for it (and I also do not want to have too many dependencies, even if I do not have to pay for it).

Also, not all programs use package.json and requirements.txt, so that won't work anyways.

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

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1. Work for free making open source code and giving it away for free. 2. Giant corporations take all my code without giving me anything. 3. Now I'm really angry! I should have gotten some money from them! 4. The government must force my neighbours to pay a salary to me! 5. Continue to work for free making open source code for giant corporations, so they can profit. How about instead?: 1. Don't work for free or give a…

I'm not agreeing with the OP proposal, but with LLMs today, no matter how you license your code and no matter what ToS or other prohibition you put on it, there does not seem to be any way to prevent LLMs from absorbing and using it to implement a replacement based on your code unless you choose to only do closed source code - there's no "opt out" for someone's source code, let alone an opt-in (again, unless we give up open source). (A very different situation from the AI companies themselves, where companies such as Anthropic make Claude Code closed source, and their ToS provide strict prohibitions on using it to work on something that could compete with them - can you imagine if Windows or MacOS's ToS prohibited people from using their OS to work on a competing OS, of if the VSCode ToS prohibited people from using VSCode to work on another editor?)

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

#257
post #8
post #2

Great. That would mean that 98% of the github users would leave it.

He said only for org users. Orgs are already paying github, 4-20$ per month per user.

Although the article's author might have intentionally chosen a highly misleading title (ragebait?), as it would have been far less misleading (and shorter) to write "GitHub should charge orgs $1 more per month" instead of "everyone" ...

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

#258
post #93

Considering that Github already has indirectly done a biggest theft in the tech history, I'd say: no way.

> Github already has indirectly done a biggest theft in the tech history

What is "the biggest theft in tech history" that GitHub did?

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

#259
This would be terrible.

People would milk the system as much as they could, only to become the most popular library, only to get most of the "pie".

I guess Python/JS devs would get the most of it. Because their ecosystem is most fragmented. C++ or assembly devs? Nothing.

I don't think this idea is thought out. Money corrupts things.

There already is a "market" for stars. But if stars would indicate how much someone earns, it would be morbid. Well, in some way, I guess they already do, but it's linked at least indirectly.

Post reply on HN