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

GitHub Sponsors

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 516 posts

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#501

Post by Drdrdrq »

stockkid wrote: post #110
mushufasa wrote: post #5

This seems like it's needed and (dareisay) overdue? Integrating sponsorship subscriptions into the core experience is sure to increase payments, a la twitch subscriptions/payments (which Youtube is just now copying). I imagine this will change the fundamental dynamics around OSS projects, but not sure how, nor whether it is all positive. - If maintainers can see who donated, do they prioritize issues / pull requests?…

> Does this hurt FOSS contributions, because now people start to expect to be paid rather than doing it for inherent motivations? I think having donatiom payments integrated with the platform will shift the motivation of programmers from intrinsic to extrinsic one. The design seems to show a call to action to 'sponsor' right in the github profile. That's a big emphasis. Will such shift 'hurt' the FOSS contribution? I…

Interesting. I agree that it's not going to be the same, but I welcome that. Currently open source is just a tool for big tech to advance their agenda.

I think this is a brilliant move from MS. They gain goodwill and at the same time help shift expectations of OSS developers towards being paid for work. Given that both of Azure rivals are using FOSS extensively, while MS is not (much?), this could help weaken the rivals.

The reason I welcome this is that too often OSS is simply not good enough and would be (imho) much better if developers were paid for their work.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#502

Post by Drdrdrq »

0xffff2 wrote: post #363
sah2ed wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first scenario is a loss leader -- it doesn't contribute any revenue for the business to stay afloat. The second may or may not be a loss leader, but it will contribute something in revenue for the business to stay afloat.

That's charitable. Nowhere do they say that their "payment processing fee" will be limited to the fees charged by their payment processor. They could very well charge some multiple of that value to generate a profit.

There is: nominal processing fee.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#503

Post by Drdrdrq »

cutenewt wrote: post #405
johnnyfaehell wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a sad commentary on software development as a profession, as well as society as well. A watershed moment is when private individuals might be able to get paid for the extremely valuable work that they do that allows thousands of companies to make a profit with some companies becoming worth billions. The fact that the ability to socially beg for money for valuable software makes the idea of writing valuable so…

What's the line between patronage and just hiring someone outright for a pet project?

Dignity.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#504

Post by imtringued »

briandear wrote: post #323
Kirth wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do companies use GitHub sponsorships to judge the health of dependencies? Will they create budgets to support their dependencies systematically? In my past I've worked with multiple places that absolutely loved open-source. Because to them it was "free". Something they could use in their products and then charge customers for. Often these opportunistic parasites would never contribute anything back; going out of th…

> Often these opportunistic parasites would never contribute anything back So a user of open source to make money is a parasite? Are people that use LibreOffice to type legal documents they charge money for considered parasites if they don’t contribute to source code or financially to LibreOffice? If that’s the case, there is an incentive to use closed source software and just pay for it so as to avoid having to be c…

Yeah I disagree that the users have to contribute something back. Half the value of a project comes from the users. The other half comes from the developers. If no one uses your software then it's worthless and it wouldn't matter if you spent all day playing video games instead. If someone else does end up using your software and builds a business around it and you don't like it then you should either start a business yourself or alternatively think of your work as returning the favor to all the other open source developers who have worked for free and will benefit from your project directly or indirectly by making proprietary software cheaper.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#505

Post by imtringued »

stockkid wrote: post #110
mushufasa wrote: post #5

This seems like it's needed and (dareisay) overdue? Integrating sponsorship subscriptions into the core experience is sure to increase payments, a la twitch subscriptions/payments (which Youtube is just now copying). I imagine this will change the fundamental dynamics around OSS projects, but not sure how, nor whether it is all positive. - If maintainers can see who donated, do they prioritize issues / pull requests?…

> Does this hurt FOSS contributions, because now people start to expect to be paid rather than doing it for inherent motivations? I think having donatiom payments integrated with the platform will shift the motivation of programmers from intrinsic to extrinsic one. The design seems to show a call to action to 'sponsor' right in the github profile. That's a big emphasis. Will such shift 'hurt' the FOSS contribution? I…

It wouldn't surprise me if maintainers suddenly start ignoring issues from non-sponsors because they can't handle all of them.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#506

Post by jsjohnst »

jjeaff wrote: post #495
DoreenMichele wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not at my best. Maybe someone other than me can find Patrick McKenzie's HN comment about "please make it easy for me to get an invoice instead of calling it a donation because I have to comply with tax laws and yadda, but would be happy to support your open source project if I actually use it for business purposes and can get the piece of paper called an invoice that my accountant and the government insist on." I…

You don't need an invoice to make something a business expenses and or tax deduction. Even in the case of an audit, the bank or credit card statement showing who the money was paid to is enough. Now, if you are giving cash, you would definitely need an invoice.

This is just flat wrong advice in every jurisdiction I’ve worked in and further wouldn’t fly at any employer. The bank statement may provide the WHO in the transaction, but the invoice / receipt / similar provides the most important part, the WHAT that was paid for.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#507

Post by imtringued »

marktani wrote: post #41

I support one project on Open Collective [1] on a monthly basis. They do take a cut from the money I donate to cover the credit card fees and their operational costs. GitHub Support does not take any fees and even matches donations... wow! While this news sounds amazing on the surface, I am also concerned it might have negative effects on the OSS ecosystem overall. Let's see how this pans out! [1] https://opencollect…

The big question is if they don't take fees then how do they match the donations? This is clearly unsustainable.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#508

Post by zapita »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #486
RhodesianHunter wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent of this thread is someone in marketing suggesting ways this could come out of the marketing budget, very similar to the workaround of invoicing suggested in your linked comment. Both are ways to make donating to OSS a business expense rather than a charitable donation.

No, not really. Adding logos and yadda in exchange for remuneration is a really well established form of commercial monetization. In contrast, invoicing OSS is a new and innovative way to get cash for what you already do, just like a donation. If people want to go that route, my comments on the internet aren't some kind of bar to that approach, so I'm not sure why you seem to feel some need to argue it. But if you ar…

Invoicing support, maintenance and custom development of open-source software is a more established practice than patreon-style donations to open-source developers.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#509

Post by DoreenMichele »

zapita wrote: post #508
DoreenMichele wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. Adding logos and yadda in exchange for remuneration is a really well established form of commercial monetization. In contrast, invoicing OSS is a new and innovative way to get cash for what you already do, just like a donation. If people want to go that route, my comments on the internet aren't some kind of bar to that approach, so I'm not sure why you seem to feel some need to argue it. But if you ar…

Invoicing support, maintenance and custom development of open-source software is a more established practice than patreon-style donations to open-source developers.

I'm aware that OSS sometimes makes money on activities like customer support and custom development. That's not what's being discussed here.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#510

Post by zapita »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #509
zapita wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invoicing support, maintenance and custom development of open-source software is a more established practice than patreon-style donations to open-source developers.

I'm aware that OSS sometimes makes money on activities like customer support and custom development. That's not what's being discussed here.

We’re discussing it right now... I’m referring to the concept of “invoicing open-source” which you describe as “new and innovative”. I’m arguing that it’s not. It’s a variation of the support and custom development model which is already very common.
Post reply on HN