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

71–80 of 352 posts

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

#71

Post by Unfunkyufo »

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the solution to the open source funding problem is to force people to pay for it. I think that goes against the spirit of open source. If there is forced payment, or even the expectation of payment, then we're not really doing the whole original open source thing, we're just doing bad source available commercial-ish software.

I think the solution is for people to understand that open source goes both ways. Unlike what this post says, users don't owe maintainers anything, but maintainers also don't owe the users anything. If I build something cool and share it freely, why should users expect anything from me? Why should you expect me to maintain it or add the features you want? I think we need a mentality change where less is expected from maintainers, unless funding is arranged.

After all, it's free and open source. No one is forcing you to use it. Don't like that I'm not actively developing it? Submit a PR or fork it. Isn't that what the original spirit of open source was? I think that open source has been so succesful and good that we've come to expect it to be almost like commercial software. That's not what it is.

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

#72

Post by moffkalast »

> 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.

Is that not what most of open source is? Things people make for themselves because they either found it fun or solved their own problem, then published it for others to use for free. Most projects are not worth the bureaucratic tax related headaches the income from them would bring (maybe that's just my EU showing).

What's not okay is demanding new features or to fix something urgently. That's paid territory.

Honestly this post is such a shit take it's borderline intentional ragebait.

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

#73

Post by bigstrat2003 »

securesaml wrote: post #47
strongpigeon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.

Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed. And it leads to unmaintained libraries, since companies don't want to pay. At some point, is open sourcing your work a liability?

> Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed.

And then they can shrug and move on with their respective days. If I open source something it's a gift to the commons, not a promise to work on it for free in perpetuity. I don't really care if someone tries to shame me for that, as there's nothing to be ashamed of.

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

#74

Post by christoff12 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #51
pixelready wrote: post #36

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.

a) I'm not sure it logically follows that the hikikomori would be a particularly artistic group, thus don't understand the assertion; b) how do we know they aren't? By definition, they wouldn't be out promoting their works or gaining recognition.

Also, there is at least one example of UBI contributing to an increase in activity:

"According to the research, 31% of BIA recipients reported an increased ability to sustain themselves through arts work alone, and the number of people who reported low pay as a career barrier went down from one third to 17%. These changes were identified after the first six months of the scheme and remained stable as the scheme continued." [1]

[1] https://musiciansunion.org.uk/news/ireland-s-basic-income-fo...

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

#75

Post by pixelready »

adezxc wrote: post #62
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.

and yet their hypothesis is true, there are already many people, with or without UBI, that volunteer, create things and in general help people surrounding them without any reward and they are the backbone of every society, not the career-chasers

I think phenomena like hikkikomori have more to do with (at least perceived) social rejection than lack of motivation. If the only acceptable message you receive from society is that you must chase the brass ring constantly and any setback means you are an abject failure, then withdrawing from the pain of that rejection makes sense for anyone who has experienced enough setbacks or strongly feels alien to that culture. A broader societal shift would occur if it was truly universally understood that everyone has value as a human being separate from their labor market leverage or capital accumulation.

There will always be strivers who measure their self worth against superficial standards (Russ Hanneman “doors go up” hand gesture here), I just don’t see why everyone should be forced to play that game or starve I suppose. Giving everyone the option to settle for a life of basic dignity while caring for those around them, or going all in on some academic / creative pursuit seems equally valid investments for society.

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

#76

Post by helterskelter »

ksec wrote: post #39
porise wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would put Disney in there. I picked 8 arbitrarily but those companies have substantial pull in governmental regulations and the state of the web. Probably missing some Chinese companies. imo corporations have more pull on governments than governments have on businesses at this point as far as long term culture goes.

Had you said these 8 companies controlling the world 5 to 6 years ago I would have partly agreed. But right now I see so many cracks in their game I am optimistic they wont control world and there will be new competition to challenge them.

The trick will be getting around the regulations that are being set up to protect interests of government and big business at the expense of everybody else. This will only become more difficult as time goes on.

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

#77

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

securesaml wrote: post #47
strongpigeon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.

Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed. And it leads to unmaintained libraries, since companies don't want to pay. At some point, is open sourcing your work a liability?

If you look at the issue list for any significant open source project, it's probably of nonzero size. That's a way of saying "no": just don't do it.

Maybe you're overloaded, maybe you just don't feel like it. It's totally normal, and different projects have different levels of resources, some with none anymore.

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

#79

Post by ummonk »

If you willingly choose to make source code publicly available under an open source license you can’t then act all shocked that people don’t have to pay you for using that code. If you wanted to be guaranteed an income whenever your code gets used, you should have chosen a different license.

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

#80

Post by securesaml »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #77
securesaml wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed. And it leads to unmaintained libraries, since companies don't want to pay. At some point, is open sourcing your work a liability?

If you look at the issue list for any significant open source project, it's probably of nonzero size. That's a way of saying "no": just don't do it. Maybe you're overloaded, maybe you just don't feel like it. It's totally normal, and different projects have different levels of resources, some with none anymore.

I have seen small utility libraries like tj-actions get compromised because there aren't any security specialists looking at the library.

My main concern is supply chain compromise.

Post reply on HN