Live data from Hacker News

Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

github.com

61–70 of 109 posts

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#61
post #26
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Indian Govt is dictatorial and segregational. It is a valid concern. Freedom of speech and privacy are not something the government cares about upholding.

Can you spell ICE, Flock and Ring?

ICE doesn’t have a contract with Flock and Ring cancelled its partnership with Flock also.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#62
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell, no, they weren't just asking for wire details. They were were asking for multiple forms of identification. If I was in his place, I don't think I'd send everything required to steal my identity to some company in a foreign country that I have no legal recourse in.

The irony is that a lot of the KYC checks are actually done in India: Jumio, Onfido, LexisNexis, Refinitiv, HyperVerge, IDfy, Signzy (a lot of major banks) So his ID is probably there already

Sure, but this would have changed that from "probably" to "definitely". :(

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#63

Back in 2024, FLOSS/fund was described like this on HN: > To apply, the project must place a funding.json in their public code repository or at a well-known uri location on their domain [...] That's already 10x more simpler than the 20 page document some of these other orgs have you fill. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41857032 But the author of the issue for Pocketbase writes: > due to some unforeseen regula…

India have a strict process for sending and receiving money from outside as investment. Its mainly to avoid black money i guess.

Many countries have similar controls; they're often represented as being anti-money-laundering, and anti-terrorism, but they are also used to control capital outflows, and improve tax compliance. I have never seen any evidence that this sort of control actually works to prevent money laundering or terrorist financing, but it does seem to help governments reduce monetary outflows and audit for tax compliance (when they bother to actually read what they receive).

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it shouldn't. The funding source was dropped by Github, and the terms Pocketbase accepted for funding include being paid through Github by FLOSS Fund. FLOSS Fund refused to follow the regulatory requirements to continue funding projects through Github, and Github dropped them as a funding source. What the Pocketbase maintainer decided was to drop FLOSS Fund after they tried to renegotiate the contract in dang…

[dead]

[deleted]

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it shouldn't. The funding source was dropped by Github, and the terms Pocketbase accepted for funding include being paid through Github by FLOSS Fund. FLOSS Fund refused to follow the regulatory requirements to continue funding projects through Github, and Github dropped them as a funding source. What the Pocketbase maintainer decided was to drop FLOSS Fund after they tried to renegotiate the contract in dang…

[dead]

This is false. I just did an international wire transfer a few weeks ago with no KYC.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#66
Seems fine. The fund is Indian and is set up for open-source software. The money is going to come from India. If you're not in India you have to file paperwork. This is pretty normal stuff. If you don't want to file paperwork you can choose not to take money from the fund. Everything here is fine except this guy applied and only then realized the requirements. That's a mistake (because they'll now have to reallocate to someone they had to decline) but a very minor one.

The whole thing just seems in the realm of "I was going to pay for a car but then it cost too much" i.e. it's just stuff that you'd like to have but then you didn't want to do what it cost so you opted out. Quite a mundane thing.

Seems unnecessary to post about all this personal data this and stuff like that but in open-source software what you get in freedom you pay for in drama.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying sending money via Wire transfer is unethical? Its a standard way to send money in cross boarder transactions. Please do note that India is highly regulated for financial transaction that go outside the country so, please don't spread something like they are doing it illegally. Zerodha is a well known firm they are open about this funding. 1 Million every year just because they used many oss project. Th…

From what I can tell, no, they weren't just asking for wire details. They were were asking for multiple forms of identification. If I was in his place, I don't think I'd send everything required to steal my identity to some company in a foreign country that I have no legal recourse in.

The e-mail posted somewhere in the comments, assuming it is legit, makes it clear that FLOSS Fund requires certain paperwork for tax reasons to the benefit of the receiver. Apparently the Pocketbase developer is receiving the money personally, which means it is income and will be taxed. Apparently, again, it would also be taxed in India (the seat of FLOSS Fund) and the paperwork would allow to avoid double taxation.

This appears much more reasonable to me than the hoops I have to jump through to declare my taxes as an US expatriate and avoid double taxation with my country of residence.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

This is false. I just did an international wire transfer a few weeks ago with no KYC.

Right, so you think.

But: your bank knows who you are and the recipient's bank knows who they are. Your transfer may have been below the increased attention threshold ($10K to $50K depending on the jurisdictions of both recipients).

Both your accounts are most likely not recent and in good standing.

And so on. I routinely make international wiretransfers as well but I'm under no illusion whatsoever that if I tried to cross an anti-money-laundering or anti-terrorism-financing threshold somewhere that the transfer would be immediately stopped and an investigation would ensue.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#69
It looks like the paperwork requirements are understandable, but it's also quite reasonable to not want to bother with it.

I've also never had the impression that he really needed the money to continue maintaining Pocketbase.

He's entitled to his opinions, and if $30k is cheaper to him than his perceived breach of privacy and the hassle of paperwork, that's his prerogative.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#70
post #16
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a contract where they give money in exchange for basically nothing. It may be reasonable for pocketbase to refuse, but i have trouble seeing floss fund being unethical or in the wrong when we're talking about giving away money for nothing. Especially when the ask is just fill out the paperwork for a wire transfer, the world standard for sending money internationally.

Don't think escrow is possible because of KYC requirements, then again the regulations in India might be different.

Escrow is the wrong tool for the job anyway.
Post reply on HN