TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A new funding model for open source software

354 点作者 colinmcd将近 5 年前

48 条评论

imtringued将近 5 年前
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).<p>Instead we got a stupid global pool based on global popularity that primarily benefits PewDiePie even if I don&#x27;t watch him. The compensation was barely enough to cover the lost ad revenue so it failed to actually provide a viable funding alternative for channels that aren&#x27;t getting millions of views.<p>I hope the same thing doesn&#x27;t happen with this model. If 100 people sign up at $10&#x2F;month to only support CatacylsmDDA and minetest then these two projects should get $500 each (minus transaction fees). That money should not be diverted to Angular, React, Vue, ... and then when its time for the two mentioned projects they only get a pittance like $5 per month.
评论 #23997467 未加载
评论 #23998588 未加载
评论 #23995792 未加载
评论 #24000380 未加载
评论 #23997224 未加载
评论 #23996167 未加载
peteforde将近 5 年前
I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn&#x27;t come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it.<p>And man, do I ever hope that they do.<p>There&#x27;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&#x27;d be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are going to be the contrarian 2%.<p>It&#x27;s important to remember that GH sponsors isn&#x27;t even out of beta, yet - you still have to apply and make sure that all of your tax docs are in order.<p>One small proposal I&#x27;d make is that I suggest Sponsors and Pool could exist happily in parallel. I believe that there&#x27;s a meaningful difference between being the patron of a developer and feeling like you&#x27;re backing a creator with feelings and a story and a family... and wanting to be a good citizen that has an approved list of projects that I benefit from and want to support.<p>I can sponsor Matz, get his updates and feel good about knowing I am counted as a supporter AND set aside $$$ per month to contribute to all of the tools I use in my projects simply because it&#x27;s the right thing to do and I want those projects to exist for the long term. They are completely different initiatives. Patreon vs Humble Bundle, if you will.<p>Perhaps most critically, Github could keep absorbing the cost of processing payments to sponsored developers but also announce that they plan to hold back 3% of your monthly pool amount to cover CC processing fees. I think most people would be more than fine with this.<p>But if Github isn&#x27;t on board, this is all just speculative fiction. Please, if you work at Github, make this happen.
评论 #23995835 未加载
评论 #23995179 未加载
评论 #23995918 未加载
评论 #23997941 未加载
评论 #23997547 未加载
评论 #23996676 未加载
评论 #23995690 未加载
inputmice将近 5 年前
Two issues here:<p>Models like these existed. Flattr and Liberapay. The latter had to switch away from the pooling model because turns out when you do the pooling you essentially become a bank and that’s difficult to do legally.<p>Those models only work if users actually visit your website or your Github. I’m developing an app targeted at end users and I bet 90% of them have never been on Github or even know what that is.
评论 #23995973 未加载
评论 #23998872 未加载
评论 #23998304 未加载
kumarvvr将近 5 年前
I remember a company doing this some time ago.<p>You have an account, filled with a monthly recurring amount, what ever amount that is. Then you click these &quot;contribute&quot; buttons, placed by the open source project webmasters in their pages.<p>Each click of button registers that project to your account and the site distributes your monthly amount among those registered projects.<p>Not able to recollect the name of the company though. Spreadrr, or Poolr or something.<p>Edit: Another comment got it. It&#x27;s Flattr
colinmcd将近 5 年前
OP here. I&#x27;d love to see something like this exist. Let me know if it does already, or if someone is trying, and I&#x27;ll link it below.<p>EDIT: This model is used by Flattr [0]. Unfortunately Flattr isn&#x27;t targeted at open-source software; an OSS-specific approach (ideally implemented by a highly visible, established player) is (probably) necessary for something like this to reach its potential.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;flattr.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;flattr.com&#x2F;</a>
评论 #23995400 未加载
评论 #23997005 未加载
评论 #23981985 未加载
评论 #23993293 未加载
jjcm将近 5 年前
If anyone is interested, I have a simulator for pool-based funding as I&#x27;m working on a side project that uses the same approach: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;syd.jjcm.org&#x2F;soci&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;syd.jjcm.org&#x2F;soci&#x2F;</a><p>My project is essentially a reddit-esque site that hosts images&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;video&#x2F;audio content. Each vote on a piece of content gives it one share of your funding pool for that month. The pool based approach is definitely the best for simple usability, but there&#x27;s another aspect to it as well: it means you weigh your vote more. In the case of a social sharing&#x2F;news site, low-effort content will get upvoted less, as you have to consider that every vote will dilute the pool.<p>I&#x27;m really bought in on this as an overall concept and I think it&#x27;s something that will be extremely healthy for the web overall. Previously this was a model that was used by Flattr, but they had a major issue that not everyone was on their platform, so often times creators wouldn&#x27;t get money out of a donation (because they didn&#x27;t know the donation existed). I definitely agree with the author here that if this were to be done, Github themselves would have to implement it. As soon as a third party who isn&#x27;t hosting the content implements it, an enormous percentage of creators wont know they have funding waiting for them and things fall apart.
musingsole将近 5 年前
Everyone thinks they deserve a dollar and can never imagine that the relative value of their code is effectively zero no matter how much it solves a particular problem.<p>&gt;Big projects — operating systems, frameworks, CMSs, or fully self-hostable applications — are in a privileged position to extract more value from their users, especially corporate ones<p>Big projects aren&#x27;t privileged to extract more value. They&#x27;re privileged to solve enough of a problem for enough people that the scraps thrown their way amount to a meaningful warchest. Corporate big projects are privileged to extract wealth. That&#x27;s the part that pays crazy SWE salaries.
评论 #23994218 未加载
评论 #23994316 未加载
评论 #23994571 未加载
dimitrios1将近 5 年前
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&#x27;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&#x27;s usage in the project.
评论 #23995190 未加载
评论 #23996159 未加载
评论 #24003448 未加载
评论 #23996253 未加载
评论 #23995717 未加载
anurag将近 5 年前
It&#x27;s worth looking at Tidelift (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tidelift.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tidelift.com</a>): they&#x27;re making the model work with pooled corporate subscriptions that create the right incentives.
评论 #23994422 未加载
twoleftfeets将近 5 年前
I guess I&#x27;m old. GOML!<p>This doesn&#x27;t sound like a way for open source projects to get money to me. It sounds like a way to get thousands and thousands of bad developers to spam me to support their tiny open source no effort project. For them to fork someone else&#x27;s project and ask for money for their fork. etc...<p>Note, a similar thing already happens on patreon where people ask for support for their piracy activities. They run a blogspot blog with pirated movies&#x2F;anime&#x2F;porn and expect you to sign up to support them on patreon for helping you pirate stuff.<p>Basically the easier you make it collect money from random people the stronger the incentive is for bad actors to try to get some of it. I don&#x27;t have a solution but in my defense I do sponsor 3 open source projects at $!00 a month each. But I&#x27;m sure my money is going to people&#x2F;teams who are really dedicated to their project and not just one hoping for some coffee money for their tiny thing.
boogies将近 5 年前
&gt; That&#x27;s because there&#x27;s currently no way to make a donation to the abstract concept of &quot;open source software&quot;<p>This isn&#x27;t absolutely true, there are the FSF and the Software Freedom Conservancy, who fund many medium-ish projects, including ones that include some small utilities.
评论 #23994325 未加载
评论 #23994111 未加载
dnautics将近 5 年前
What would be fantastic is if this service scaled contributions across projects whose code <i>you are actually using</i> in your repos.<p>Minor nitpick: I don&#x27;t think a badge is really considered virtue signaling because you&#x27;ve already put your wallet where your mouth is.
评论 #23994288 未加载
评论 #23995182 未加载
andrewstuart将近 5 年前
The problem here is marketing.....<p>&quot;sponsor pools&quot; &quot;sponsorships&quot; and &quot;donations&quot; are all words that imply optional, not required requests for money as a favor. i.e. begging.<p>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.
评论 #23996093 未加载
评论 #23995829 未加载
fermienrico将近 5 年前
This is amazing and I have a gut feeling that it will revolutionize OSS.<p>I usually want to give say $30&#x2F;month to OSS (personal use) and as a professional, I would have the authority to donate $300&#x2F;month.<p>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.
andrekorol将近 5 年前
I recommend taking a look at Gitcoin [0] and quadratic funding [1].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gitcoin.co&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gitcoin.co&#x2F;</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;vitalik.ca&#x2F;general&#x2F;2019&#x2F;12&#x2F;07&#x2F;quadratic.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;vitalik.ca&#x2F;general&#x2F;2019&#x2F;12&#x2F;07&#x2F;quadratic.html</a>
ahnick将近 5 年前
<i>The root of the problem is that open-source donations are made on a per-project basis. To support a project via GitHub Sponsors or OpenCollective, you must create hyet another auto-renewing monthly subscription for each project you want to support.</i><p>I don&#x27;t think the author&#x27;s description of GitHub Sponsors is exactly correct. Technically, the sponsorship is at the user&#x2F;organization level, so if you make a donation it goes to the organization&#x2F;user, which may have MULTIPLE projects going on. This is the way I have set it up for our company Plyint (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;sponsors&#x2F;plyint" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;sponsors&#x2F;plyint</a>).<p>Although I would very much like GitHub to implement a pool of organizations&#x2F;users, which is maybe what the author meant?
评论 #23994591 未加载
z3t4将近 5 年前
The problem with OSS funding is that it becomes a popularity contest. There need to be a model that is not zero sum.
评论 #23993649 未加载
katzgrau将近 5 年前
&gt; The marginal cost — both psychological and financial — of supporting additional projects would drop to zero<p>Great idea for redistributing existing funds and preventing winner take all, but the bigger hurdle is increasing the overall funds (eg, getting more people to give a shit in the first place)<p>I have a lot of experience with non profits and independent projects, and funding success is partly based on merit, but more frequently on how clear, consistent and obvious calls to action for funding are.<p>At some point it stops being a problem you can fix with software. It&#x27;s not like there&#x27;s a mountain of funding that just needs to be unlocked. It&#x27;s more about growing the funding in the first place, which when successfully done (in my experience) starts to look a lot like aggressive marketing, advertising, and tweaking of missions to appeal to whatever is hot&#x2F;fundable at the time, similar to the VC industry. True story, and kind of an anecdote that money turns everything to shit eventually.
jacques_chester将近 5 年前
I termed this model &quot;microsubscriptions&quot; when I was pursuing it in the context of website funding.<p>There are difficulties.<p><i>Gaming the system</i><p>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.<p><i>Banking</i><p>In general, financial institutions don&#x27;t like services that aggregate and transmit funds. They attract extensive regulatory burden and more importantly, they attract fraud and chargebacks.<p>Chargebacks and fraud are expensive to deal with, banks hate it, so they generally tell you to just sod off entirely.<p><i>Regulation</i><p>You are on the hook too. Anti money laundering laws are complex and can come with criminal charges for failures. Taxes are complicated and you need to keep correct books. Got it wrong? Too bad, you owe the taxman cash you don&#x27;t have.<p><i>Credit card money laundering in general</i><p>This is where someone with a stolen card uses your service to launder money taken from it. They sign up with the card, patronise their own software, then run off with the cash. Later a chargeback arrives which is levied against <i>you</i>, not the attacker.<p>The easiest defense is to limit the subscription amount, so that an attacker with a stolen card can&#x27;t benefit much. But they can still use you to test that the card is active. A second defense is to hold the funds for a period of time, so that you can pay chargebacks. Even so, you will be looked at poorly by any banks or processor companies if your chargebacks pile up, regardless of whether you could cover them or not.<p><i>Trusts</i><p>This one is the biggest mistake I see, and I see it again and again.<p>If you receive money from person A so that you can pay it to person B on A&#x27;s behalf, you are a trustee. You generally don&#x27;t need a document to become a trustee and you don&#x27;t even need to <i>intend</i> to be a trustee. Trusteeship arises from the facts.<p>What does trusteeship entail? Fiduciary duty. That is a high bar and you almost certainly don&#x27;t meet it.<p>Mingling funds from multiple donors without incredibly scrupulous accounting? Problematic. Mingling donor funds with your own funds? You&#x27;re in deep shit.<p>Further: trusts have purposes, which the trustee has to abide by. These again can arise from the mere facts. If you said you would take funds from A to pay to B, that&#x27;s <i>all</i> you can do with it. Can&#x27;t find B? Stiff shit. B doesn&#x27;t want the funds? Stiff shit again. You now have money that is like radioactive waste: it&#x27;s dangerous, you are responsible for it and it won&#x27;t go away.<p>----<p>In <i>general</i> I like microsubscriptions as a model for <i>some</i> things. I spent a lot of time, emotion and treasure on doing it myself. But it is harder than it looks.
评论 #23993550 未加载
评论 #23994141 未加载
评论 #23993718 未加载
评论 #23994312 未加载
maelito将近 5 年前
Change &quot;open source projet&quot; with &quot;online newspaper&quot; and everything applies.<p>I want to be able to give 20€&#x2F;month to whatever news article I read with just one click. Instead of liking something, I want to be able to pay quality writings.<p>The browser is the perfect way to do this. I don&#x27;t understand why Mozilla did not implement that.<p>Brave is close, but Brave wants us to view ads. I don&#x27;t want to pay for a newspaper article talking about climate change through watching their ad for the latest diesel SUV. I want to pay them, but without filling my bank details for a monthly payment.<p>In France, the largest national newspaper lemonde.fr lets you subscribe in 1 click for 1€, but then you have to send them an tracked postal letter costing 7€ to cancel your subscription.
TimJRobinson将近 5 年前
I would love something like this + automatically adding all the NPM packages I use to the pool (or similar for Cargo, PIP etc). So that I don&#x27;t have to manually find the packages, and can easily contribute to everyone who&#x27;s code I&#x27;m using.
评论 #23996673 未加载
andrey_utkin将近 5 年前
This addresses the lack of convenience in existing tooling, but not the core of the problem of FOSS sustainability.<p>I believe to solve the problem two things must happen:<p>* Users evaluate how exactly much they benefit from particular software and services, and how much they&#x27;d lose in utility if their option of choice disappeared.<p>* Maintainers find out what matters to real users and offer them good bargains to fund their development roadmap and maintenance service level.<p>See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archives.gentoo.org&#x2F;gentoo-project&#x2F;message&#x2F;3735cd91750a1214443a283546391b72" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archives.gentoo.org&#x2F;gentoo-project&#x2F;message&#x2F;3735cd917...</a>
noxer将近 5 年前
Concept is very similar to Coil.com s &quot;donation&quot; for web content. But Coil actually does &quot;pay by usage&quot; and should therefore be more fair at distributing the money. Its hard to define usage for an open source project.
wolco将近 5 年前
It could work for a select group. The reason why other donation models are successful is because they offer something (insider access&#x2F;game earlier) that makes you feel special without the badge.
评论 #23993229 未加载
unsungNovelty将近 5 年前
I am glad people are thinking more about Open Source software and how to fund them. I think among other problems, Open Source have 2 main root issues when it comes to funding.<p>1. Silver bullet is a myth. The OSS users are forced to use one medium for funding the software. Maybe Patreon, Github Sponsors, Paypal, Librepay and more not than one or all of them in most cases. Using more funding method have their own challenges, but it depending on the prject should definitely be more than one.<p>I take the inspiration from POSSE concept from Indieweb (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;indieweb.org&#x2F;POSSE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;indieweb.org&#x2F;POSSE</a>). It talks about publishing your content (blogs etc) once and distributing through various channels like FB, Twitter, HN etc instead of forcing people to your website which is just one medium. We should give the same level or freedom and choices to people who want to donate to your OSS project so that they will use a method which they are already using. Reducing the friction. And Flattr or the new proposed will only be one of the ways or should be one of the ways.<p>2. A lot of people don&#x27;t know the difference between FOSS&#x2F;FLOSS and OSS. Especially people after the Millennials (i think). To them, it is a FREE material. It is not! We should make awareness about what free software movement was.<p>Before you jump the gun here, please read the GNU page about selling free software - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;philosophy&#x2F;selling.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;philosophy&#x2F;selling.html</a>.<p>Open Source forever have been about &quot;free as in freedom&quot; not about &quot;free as in beer&quot;. The whole reason for it to start was because the software was not allowed to be redistributed and modified among other things. There definitely was freeware and other software models which were FREE even before Open Source was coined. Stop using FOSS&#x2F;FLOSS everywhere if you don&#x27;t mean it and make awareness about the differences about FOSS&#x2F;FLOSS and OSS.<p>The effort and time of the maintainer should be rewarded with whatever he&#x2F;she&#x2F;they want, either recognition or money. We should make it a new normal. Making money from OSS should be OK. Being rich (if you can that is :D )from OSS should be OK.<p>Hope funding in OSS gets more momentum!
bullen将近 5 年前
I&#x27;m going to offer users something if they sponsor the project by looking in the GraphQL data. Today there are no simple ways of just asking github: &quot;for how much $ does user X sponsor user Y&quot; and much less per project!<p>I think that is the only way to get open source revenue! Unfortunately that means you either need a service or some closed source part that guarantees that revenue.
galaxyLogic将近 5 年前
What happens when an open source-project gets funding? How is the money distributed inside the project, among different contributors?
评论 #23995233 未加载
评论 #23994741 未加载
pabs3将近 5 年前
Sponsor pools sounds a bit like snowdrift:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;snowdrift.coop&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;snowdrift.coop&#x2F;</a>
smashah将近 5 年前
An odd side effect of trying to monetise an open source project is another repo popping up just outright copying it with no attribution. Amazingly, some people expect that if you make an open source project on GitHub therefore every single feature related to that project should also be open sourced. It&#x27;s very disheartening.
C50VGicCxmHC将近 5 年前
I think the open source model is fundamentally flawed and enables the big corporations to profit at the cost of the little people. The large corporations benefit disproportionately from open source as opposed to the maintainers. I thing what would be useful would be a programmer&#x27;s &quot;guild&quot;.<p>* There is a yearly due - say $100&#x2F;year<p>* When you write software, you assign a license to anyone in the programmer&#x27;s guild to be able to use that software. The requirement is that you have to contribute back changes.<p>* Only people in the programmer&#x27;s guild can use that code.<p>* Anyone can join the programmer&#x27;s guild, as long as they pay.<p>* A guild member can allocate up to half their year due to support a guild open source project or projects.<p>* You use the annual dues, to support widely used infrastructure that a lot of programmers are using. A big example would be NNTP<p>This has number of very nice benefits. First of all, it ensures a massive pool of money to support worthwhile open source projects, that everybody is using (think NNTP, or projects like that). With that pool of money, we could add benefits for guild members such as employment contract legal review, immigration assistance, etc. If you increased the annual dues, you would be able to do more, but at the cost of excluding more people.
评论 #23993905 未加载
muazzam将近 5 年前
Yet another model that has probably been never used on high scale: letting people sponsor tickets (GitHub issues). The donation would go to the contributor who closes the ticket to the satisfaction of the main contributors. The amount, of course, will be decided by how a ticket is perceived as important.
评论 #23998395 未加载
kseifried将近 5 年前
The entities that most benefit monetarily from OpenSource are companies that sell products and services based on them. Why would they contribute to this? It&#x27;s an added expense they don&#x27;t have to pay. In fact a major tenant of OpenSource is that you can choose to make money or give. it away for free, but you generally have to release the source code, which is what the companies want, so again, why would they pay for it? To make a more sustainable ecosystem? Hahaha.<p>As for individuals funding this, Open Source developers are not cheap, to make it worthwhile (e.g. comparable to a part time contracting gig) we&#x27;re talking a minimum of tens of thousands of dollars per year per developer. We&#x27;re not going to get anywhere near these numbers with individuals contributing.<p>I write this as the guy that tried to help the OpenSource world by assigning CVEs for security issues (several thousand...), I&#x27;d have had to charge 1-200$ per CVE to make a living at this while I was doing it. That&#x27;s not going to be sustained by personal donations. And even though a CVE will easily save companies a few tens to hundreds of dollars (time spent tracking all these issues when they don&#x27;t have CVEs...) there&#x27;s no way I&#x27;m going to get companies to pay me.<p>The good news is that this doesn&#x27;t really matter. We&#x27;ve had many decades of OpenSource, there&#x27;s enough good people working on this because it&#x27;s their passion&#x2F;hobby&#x2F;day job that it&#x27;s mostly sustainable on average, but specific bits may be sickly, and that&#x27;s ok.<p>Some related listening and reading:<p>Episode 205 – The State of Open Source Security with Alyssa Miller from Snyk <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensourcesecurity.io&#x2F;2020&#x2F;07&#x2F;12&#x2F;episode-205-the-state-of-open-source-security-with-alyssa-miller-from-snyk&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensourcesecurity.io&#x2F;2020&#x2F;07&#x2F;12&#x2F;episode-205-the-sta...</a><p>Episode 185 – Is it even possible to fix open source security? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensourcesecurity.io&#x2F;2020&#x2F;03&#x2F;02&#x2F;episode-185-is-it-even-possible-to-fix-open-source-security&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensourcesecurity.io&#x2F;2020&#x2F;03&#x2F;02&#x2F;episode-185-is-it-e...</a><p>Episode 182 – Does open source owe us anything? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensourcesecurity.io&#x2F;2020&#x2F;02&#x2F;10&#x2F;episode-182-does-open-source-owe-us-anything&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensourcesecurity.io&#x2F;2020&#x2F;02&#x2F;10&#x2F;episode-182-does-op...</a>
ggurgone将近 5 年前
I like this idea! I had a similar one a while back <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;giuseppegurgone.com&#x2F;github-sponsors-oss-sustainability&#x2F;#paid-packages" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;giuseppegurgone.com&#x2F;github-sponsors-oss-sustainabili...</a>
justjosias将近 5 年前
Another good idea would be for projects to list other projects they depend on, and set aside a certain amount of their GitHub sponsor income to go to those projects. Thus Users -&gt; Projects -&gt; Dependencies flows naturally with the same model.
EGreg将近 5 年前
If I may, a totally different way of funding open source projects is possible too, that doesn’t rely on charity mechanisms: I will submit it to HN now as a link under the title “A Decentralized Model for Funding Open Source”. Look tor it there.
transitivebs将近 5 年前
Any approach to OSS funding based on donations fundamentally doesn&#x27;t scale because the economic incentives just aren&#x27;t there.<p>Whether you&#x27;re donating to one person, one project, or a pool of projects, the business model just doesn&#x27;t work out.
joelwass将近 5 年前
Have you checked out flossbank, it feels like an automated version of what you’re describing
ZinniaZirconium将近 5 年前
OK my project is open source. I have zero stars, zero downloads, and zero users.<p>How much do I get paid?<p>Zero? But I wrote open source code that solves a real problem. It&#x27;s open source. I should deserve to get paid. Because open source software.<p>I don&#x27;t think your funding model works.
评论 #23994269 未加载
评论 #23997071 未加载
评论 #23996106 未加载
评论 #23997643 未加载
felixge将近 5 年前
This sounds great!<p>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.
评论 #23995523 未加载
评论 #23995899 未加载
andrekorol将近 5 年前
If you&#x27;re willing to move away from your proposed GitHub route, you could try implementing it on something like Gitcoin. The &quot;wallet&quot; you mentioned in the article could be a smart-contract that by the end of each month (or any desired period) would automatically make the donations directly to the crypto wallets of the projects that you chose to include in your sponsor pool.<p>That way, you jump over some of the implementational and regulatory hurdles. There would be no intermediary, such as GitHub, paying for the transaction fees. The transaction fees necessary for using the smart-contract on a given blockchain would be paid directly by the person making the donations.
评论 #23994521 未加载
评论 #23994578 未加载
评论 #23994602 未加载
评论 #23994374 未加载
ex3ndr将近 5 年前
Isn&#x27;t that pay models already exists? And they all failed.
tnash将近 5 年前
I love this idea as a rework of github sponsors.
Bloggerzune将近 5 年前
This is amazing and I have a gut feeling that it will revolutionize OSS. I usually want to give say $30&#x2F;month to OSS (personal use) and as a professional, I would have the authority to donate $300&#x2F;month.<p>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 &quot;microsubscriptions&quot; when I was pursuing it in the context of website funding. There are difficulties.<p>Gaming the system<p>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. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloggerzune.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;06&#x2F;How-to-improve-your-blog.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloggerzune.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;06&#x2F;How-to-improve-your-blog...</a>
dilandau将近 5 年前
For fucks sake if you are trying to make money, why are you doing open source?<p>Or, to put it another way, if you are doing open source, why are you so hung up on getting paid for it?
renewiltord将近 5 年前
FYI I&#x27;m not going to do it. I&#x27;m not going to put a recurring amount of money into open source software. It isn&#x27;t that it&#x27;s hard. I just don&#x27;t want to do it.
neatze将近 5 年前
Seems like solution to a problem that does not exist, there are many motivations for open source projects and not all of them have generating income purpose. Furthermore, generating income via dual licensing is fairly straight forward way, assuming you have solution that is in demand and works.
prepend将近 5 年前
&gt; Existing open source funding models don&#x27;t work for small projects.<p>Is this true? It seems to me that open source small projects flourish and continue to grow [0]. Although, oddly, I can’t find a simple chart of python or npm packages added over time, I expect it is.<p>Since the article is based on a seemingly false premise, it’s hard to consider the rest of the article.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;octoverse.github.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;octoverse.github.com&#x2F;</a>
评论 #23993223 未加载
评论 #23993192 未加载
iamleppert将近 5 年前
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.<p>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’d argue that popular open source software is not scarce as evidenced by how much there is of it. People will in fact rush to fill the void of open source such that the popular open source is more of a fluke than anything: if it wasn’t <i>the</i> react-router it would be something other nearly identical, where there are plenty of people waiting in line behind that.
评论 #23995879 未加载
评论 #23996540 未加载
评论 #23995561 未加载