A new funding model for open source software • Hacker News Board

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#91

Post by imtringued » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:52 AM UTC

peteforde wrote: post #63

I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…

This is probably meant to be a feature request aimed at the Github team. They introduced a sponsorship program and now that it's gaining traction people want a more streamlined and optimized product.

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#92

Post by Bloggerzune » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:53 AM UTC

This is amazing and I have a gut feeling that it will revolutionize OSS. I usually want to give say $30/month to OSS (personal use) and as a professional, I would have the authority to donate $300/month.

This would be great to not worry about individual donations, and just based on one-click or even just divide up the funds equally amongst all of my starred projects. I termed this model "microsubscriptions" when I was pursuing it in the context of website funding. There are difficulties.

Gaming the system

Folks will absolutely distort their software, buy fake github stars, spam out bazillions of typosquatting packages etc. We know this because there is already a weak financial incentive to subvert: supply chain attacks for cryptominers. Direct cash will be a much stronger incentive for fuckery. https://www.bloggerzune.com/2020/06/How-to-improve-your-blog...

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#93

Post by imtringued » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:58 AM UTC

dimitrios1 wrote: post #70

I like the idea but instead of pools going arbitrarily every which way or to the discretion of the donator, it should be automatically applied across that open source project's dependencies as well. If I am open source software A, and I make ample use of open source software B within my project, your pool donation should automatically apply some to B, relative to it's usage in the project.

This would fail with any project that uses NPM.

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#94

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 8:17 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #89

I expected Youtube Red to work like this. Each person has its own pool. Channels should have been weighed by watch time with a minimum weight so that small channels get something as well. If I watch one channel then that channel should get the whole $10 (minus youtube cut). Instead we got a stupid global pool based on global popularity that primarily benefits PewDiePie even if I don't watch him. The compensation was…

[deleted]

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#95

Post by sjellis » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 8:25 AM UTC

andrewstuart wrote: post #88

The problem here is marketing..... "sponsor pools" "sponsorships" and "donations" are all words that imply optional, not required requests for money as a favor. i.e. begging. The way to monetise open source is for payments to be required in some way. i.e. provide a core feature set that is valuable on its own and monetise by providing additional valuable features under a commercial license.

This "open core" model has been used for a long time, and it might work for commercial vendors that have large products with a plugin architecture, but it's a constant source of friction and inefficiency. Not everybody can or will be able to pay, and introducing licensing and payment systems complicates everything.

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#96

Post by jmiskovic » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 8:26 AM UTC

peteforde wrote: post #63

I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…

So we delegate complete control over open source financing channel to Microsoft, because it's most conveniant option? Sounds a bit insane.

I do use both GitHub and its Sponsors feature, but I'm still hoping for open source community to come to consensus to use a service from non-profit organization like Mozilla or EFF.

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#97

Post by imtringued » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 8:33 AM UTC

iamleppert wrote: post #80

If the kind of open source you mention were actually valuable, there would be a market for it. You make a common mistake many people make when trying to calculate value: it has nothing to do with how much something is used, it has to do with the incentives for those creating it. People do not casually write open source to make money (unless sponsored by a company). They do it for the recognition and for vanity, and I…

I have a very nice pet project with a user base in the single digits and I'd like to keep it that way. I know all my users personally and I am even using it for several hours per week myself. I couldn't care less about recognition or vanity.

People create opensource software because they have an itch they need to scratch, not because they want to get attention. Attention is expensive and involves scratching other people's itches, not yours. It means nagging users who demand things from you and drain your sanity all while making money off of your work. It's only natural that you want something in return.

>If the kind of open source you mention were actually valuable, there would be a market for it.

This argument makes no sense. If the software isn't valuable (as in worth a lot) then nobody would use it. Opensource software cannot become popular without providing value. Open source software is not valuable in the sense that it cannot be valued. You can't put a price tag on a non exclusive good if you're not selling it in the first place. Another flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that because there is no market for something there will never be one. Github sponorships, liberapay, patreon and lots of other platforms are clearly in the process of creating a market for these things. People are clearly willing to fund opensource software if it is possible. Just take a look at neovim! [0]

[0] https://salt.bountysource.com/teams/neovim

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#98

Post by imtringued » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 8:36 AM UTC

felixge wrote: post #78

This sounds great! That being said, I wonder how well this would work out for smaller projects. Spotify uses a very similar model, and from what I hear, lesser known artists make very little money on their platform.

Spotify uses a global pool which is completely different.

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#99

Post by ekianjo » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 8:39 AM UTC

peteforde wrote: post #63

I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…

> the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it.

Yes, let's encourage another walled-garden controlled by a dominant player which would be benefiting from FOSS donations (keeping % of it) while doing nothing to make GitHub a FOSS platform at the same time.

Re: A new funding model for open source software

#100

Post by black_puppydog » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 8:43 AM UTC

colinmcd wrote: post #71

peteforde wrote: post #63

I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are goi…

Author here - 100% agree on all fronts! I was dancing around this conclusion but it really does need to be GitHub. And I agree people would be fine paying their own fees if it came to that. Also, in that case, if someone is donating a non-trivial amount, they're incentivized to fund their wallet with a cheaper payment method like an ACH transfer.

I just want to point out that in Europe we have 0-fee SEPA transfers that also work for regular payments.

I'm not sure why nobody makes use of that more really. There are simple-as-paypal solutions for it, and given the amount that CC processing costs I'd have expected it to be picked up more. Maybe someone here has practical experience to share on why it's not that easy?