7 ms·

>, why is it so alarming to think that these maintainers might think of a clever idea like this to make a couple thousand bucks? [...] But instead of attacking

by jasode 7y ago

>, why is it so alarming to think that these maintainers might think of a clever idea like this to make a couple thousand bucks? [...] But instead of attacking the guy for trying, I really wish the discussion were focussed on how the community of open-source consumers can contribute back to the open source ecosystem You're (possibly unintentionally) distorting/diverting the issue. Nobody is criticizing open source maintainers for trying to get funding in an abstract sense. (We can all agree open source maintainers need income.) However, if the concrete implementation of trying to get money is unwanted and unexpected ads, then the correct focus of discussion is the criticism of that ad delivery method. The succinct version of this is: "The ends do _not_ justify the means." As hypothetical examples... - If Pi-Hole maintainers get the "clever" idea to get funding by changing "doubleclick.net" from returning "127.0.0.1" to the ip address for "BuyPiholeTShirts.com", people are going to criticize that "ad". It doesn't matter if Pi-Hole volunteers "deserve" more money, the correct focus of criticism/discussion is the sneaky ip redirect. - If the maintainer of d3 Javascript library (https://github.com/d3/d3 https://github.com/d3/d3) decides to embed advertising such as "Try LINODE for 30 days!" in "README.md" and inside the source code comments of every js file, the correct focus of discussion is those ads and not whether the maintainer needs money. The methods of soliciting funds do matter. So far, socially acceptable ways seem to be Patreon, or getting hired by FAANG, or grants, etc. The "clever ideas" like NPM console ads are not socially acceptable.

cj 7y ago
I agree with the sentiment that shady things shouldn't be excused because "I'm an open source developer and I need money". You have a point there. Although: > decides to embed advertising such as "Try LINODE for 30 days!" in "README.md" Are you trying to say that this is also not acceptable? Our company sponsors a few open source npm projects, and all of the projects we sponsor have our logo in the README.md - is that really not socially acceptable?
- jasode 7y ago
  >we sponsor have our logo in the README.md - is that really not socially acceptable? In the d3 example I tried to exaggerate the hypothetical intrusiveness of ads by embedding it in all the js source files. In your specific case, if nobody is complaining about your ad inside of a single "README.md", I'm going to presume it's "acceptable".
- Hamuko 7y ago
  There is a difference between a company logo and "Try Company PRODUCT for 30 days!" I imagine the latter comes with a link, perhaps even a tracking one, to sign up for the service.
  - lolinder 7y ago
    Not OP, but I still think that's acceptable. README.md is one of a very small number of places that open source developers can reach their users. Most of the time I only read it once, so if there's an ad there, or a link to their other products, as long as it's not a GIF and they didn't find some way to embed a tracker in README.md, I'm cool with it. It's about as relevant as advertising gets, and it's not coming from a pool of clickbait ads. It's a developer using their open source work to generate interest in the work that pays for it.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      As an open source developer, I would refuse to "reach" my users in such a tacky way as selling ad space in my README. You're correct that the README is one of the few touch points with users, and I wouldn't dare waste that on something I consider so disrespectful.
      - lolinder 7y ago
        Oh, I'm not talking about selling ad space. I agree that what Funded did was misguided at best. But what my parent was responding to was the idea of even putting a little ad for a paid product by the same developer or company. If JetBrains, for example, wanted to remind me on the README for Kotlin that they have an IDE that works well with the language, that doesn't offend me.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    An affiliate link, I suppose. Which is annoying, as these are practically spam.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    > perhaps even a tracking one Tracking the campaign? Yes, probably. But tracking you? How do you expect that to work? Making ads contextual to the place they are and tracking the campaigns to discover what works and what doesn't is how it should be done.
- Avamander 7y ago
  > Are you trying to say that this is also not acceptable? Not OP but I think it's acceptable. I'm happy to see my favourite free (as in freedom) projects' developers being supported. If someone doesn't like it and if it's truly free software then anyone can fork it to remove that ad and we don't have a problem. That's how free software works, if you can't, then it's not free software. If one just won't fork and opposes what a free software project does then that's just entitlement.
tempguy9999 7y ago
This is an unfair go at the poster. He said "I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't)." That's clear as can be. He's asking the same question I am, how do we get sufficient funding for these projects. Re your patreon suggestion, I thought we recently had an article where someone got little to nothing on that. > or getting hired by FAANG So one way to support foss software is to get hired by a closed source company. Kind of defeats your point. This is the problem right here, "I want but I'm not personally going to pay". We get ads (funding model of the modern web) or foss remains underfunded while non-foss companies get the cash they need. The problem is human nature. And yes, I've personally opened my wallet for them, and will again.
- jasode 7y ago
  >This is an unfair go at the poster. He said "I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't)." That's clear as can be. Please reread my reply to OP carefully and notice I did not say he endorsed NPM ads. Instead, I specifically disagreed with his suggestion to redirect the discussion away from the NPM ads to the general topic of open-source funding. >He's asking the same question I am, how do we get sufficient funding for these projects. To be clear, that's a different question and I wasn't even attempting to answer it. I mentioned funding like Patreon as examples of social acceptability and not as examples of income sustainability. >Kind of defeats your point. My point was a narrow one : others are criticizing the unwelcome ad solicitation and that's a correct area of focus. The other question of how to get sustainable open-source funding is also an important topic -- but that doesn't mean it forbids discussion of unacceptable spam/ads. They can be 2 parallel discussions.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    you said > However, if the concrete implementation of trying to get money is unwanted and unexpected ads, then the correct focus of discussion is the criticism of that ad delivery method But he'd already said, prior to that > I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't). He'd already said no to them; you're both in agreement. There's nothing to argue about. Having agreed that nobody wants ads, the next step is to determine how to not have them (and their nastier big sibling, telemetry and malware, which will follow) by providing funding. (edited for brevity)
bitwize 7y ago
> or getting hired by FAANG But that way, you're still likely funding your project through ad scumbaggery, you're just adding a layer of indirection.
SquishyPanda23 7y ago
Open source project funding is a major open problem, which is something many people agree on. It can't sustain if we don't solve that. What I don't see is the fairness argument. Developers have legal means to restrict commercial use of their software. The community has for decades had a conversation about licensing and none of this is new territory. These developers chose to volunteer their time to corporations. If they don't like that choice they should change their behavior not make demands of others. Otherwise it's just the high tech equivalent of the common street scam where somebody hands you an object and then demands a donation if you take it.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  Oh sure, but Industry has also browbeat people into believing the GPL is completely untenable. I've yet to see an original monetization suggestion in these threads. People have tried it all. Companies and devs prefer to wait for a poor sap to make a free-as-in-beer version and then stiff them on tips.
  - CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
    Not sure it’s a good one, but how about this: A hub of software, like github or npm could acts as a general mediator of funding. A new license could be designed such that entitles above a certain size would have to donate a percentage of revenue to the hub, while also reporting which software they which to license (this only acts as a kind of voting for where to place investments, the donation size is fixed). The hub in question could then spend the income on the various projects taking popularity in account for prioritzation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- yebyen 7y ago
  > These developers chose to volunteer their time to corporations. Not so, these developers chose to volunteer their time to benefit the commons, and corporations occupy the same spaces once in a while. Whether or not there are abusive companies who stake out those projects for rent-seeking, to build walled gardens of their own, looting the commons making money for themselves and giving nothing back, is really not a function of the person who did something good for everyone's benefit. We shouldn't be asking the person who is doing the good thing to change, friend! Reciprocity is an evolutionarily acquired trait, and while you can't count on favors to be repaid all of the time, anyway this is not a requirement in order for us to benefit from reciprocity. Students of psychology have understood this as one of the favorable characteristics of human behavior which enabled us to survive up to this point. The idea that you can give someone something and receive something bigger in return, while both parties benefit, has been a part of community building for as long as humans formed communities. I would like to share this Sandi Metz talk about it in case you have an hour and want to hear more, I'm not the student of Psychology and didn't make this stuff up myself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg > You're Insufficiently Persuasive by Sandi Metz
kyledrake 7y ago
> You're (possibly unintentionally) distorting/diverting the issue. Nobody is criticizing open source maintainers for trying to get funding in an abstract sense. Yes they're very good at providing speech and debate lip service about wanting to sustain OSS devs, but then when we actually want to do anything except hold out a tip jar they treat OSS devs like trash. The person that wanted to throw people in prison didn't seem particularly interested in our ability to get funding https://twitter.com/kyledrake/status/1166801737534984192 https://twitter.com/kyledrake/status/1166801737534984192
coding123 7y ago
I disagree with Patreon and FAANG as possible socially acceptable routes, and have no problem with ads in the console. (Grant's are clearly OK). So I guess that might be subjective? I do think that instead of everyone putting in an "ad dependency" is not the best way to go about it, but to at least directly negotiate with cloud companies to do it would be awesome.
wmf 7y ago
if the concrete implementation of trying to get money is unwanted and unexpected Every method of funding open source either doesn't work or is unwanted, so arguments like "get paid, just not this way" are disingenuous. When that guy tries a different approach instead of ads, people will be attacking him just as much. It's time to move the discussion on to "all possible funding methods are unpalatable, so what's the least bad method?"

by jasode 7y ago

cj 7y ago

I agree with the sentiment that shady things shouldn't be excused because "I'm an open source developer and I need money". You have a point there. Although: > decides to embed advertising such as "Try LINODE for 30 days!" in "README.md" Are you trying to say that this is also not acceptable? Our company sponsors a few open source npm projects, and all of the projects we sponsor have our logo in the README.md - is that really not socially acceptable?

jasode 7y ago
>we sponsor have our logo in the README.md - is that really not socially acceptable? In the d3 example I tried to exaggerate the hypothetical intrusiveness of ads by embedding it in all the js source files. In your specific case, if nobody is complaining about your ad inside of a single "README.md", I'm going to presume it's "acceptable".
Hamuko 7y ago
There is a difference between a company logo and "Try Company PRODUCT for 30 days!" I imagine the latter comes with a link, perhaps even a tracking one, to sign up for the service.
- lolinder 7y ago
  Not OP, but I still think that's acceptable. README.md is one of a very small number of places that open source developers can reach their users. Most of the time I only read it once, so if there's an ad there, or a link to their other products, as long as it's not a GIF and they didn't find some way to embed a tracker in README.md, I'm cool with it. It's about as relevant as advertising gets, and it's not coming from a pool of clickbait ads. It's a developer using their open source work to generate interest in the work that pays for it.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    As an open source developer, I would refuse to "reach" my users in such a tacky way as selling ad space in my README. You're correct that the README is one of the few touch points with users, and I wouldn't dare waste that on something I consider so disrespectful.
    - lolinder 7y ago
      Oh, I'm not talking about selling ad space. I agree that what Funded did was misguided at best. But what my parent was responding to was the idea of even putting a little ad for a paid product by the same developer or company. If JetBrains, for example, wanted to remind me on the README for Kotlin that they have an IDE that works well with the language, that doesn't offend me.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  An affiliate link, I suppose. Which is annoying, as these are practically spam.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  > perhaps even a tracking one Tracking the campaign? Yes, probably. But tracking you? How do you expect that to work? Making ads contextual to the place they are and tracking the campaigns to discover what works and what doesn't is how it should be done.
Avamander 7y ago
> Are you trying to say that this is also not acceptable? Not OP but I think it's acceptable. I'm happy to see my favourite free (as in freedom) projects' developers being supported. If someone doesn't like it and if it's truly free software then anyone can fork it to remove that ad and we don't have a problem. That's how free software works, if you can't, then it's not free software. If one just won't fork and opposes what a free software project does then that's just entitlement.

tempguy9999 7y ago

This is an unfair go at the poster. He said "I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't)." That's clear as can be. He's asking the same question I am, how do we get sufficient funding for these projects. Re your patreon suggestion, I thought we recently had an article where someone got little to nothing on that. > or getting hired by FAANG So one way to support foss software is to get hired by a closed source company. Kind of defeats your point. This is the problem right here, "I want but I'm not personally going to pay". We get ads (funding model of the modern web) or foss remains underfunded while non-foss companies get the cash they need. The problem is human nature. And yes, I've personally opened my wallet for them, and will again.

jasode 7y ago
>This is an unfair go at the poster. He said "I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't)." That's clear as can be. Please reread my reply to OP carefully and notice I did not say he endorsed NPM ads. Instead, I specifically disagreed with his suggestion to redirect the discussion away from the NPM ads to the general topic of open-source funding. >He's asking the same question I am, how do we get sufficient funding for these projects. To be clear, that's a different question and I wasn't even attempting to answer it. I mentioned funding like Patreon as examples of social acceptability and not as examples of income sustainability. >Kind of defeats your point. My point was a narrow one : others are criticizing the unwelcome ad solicitation and that's a correct area of focus. The other question of how to get sustainable open-source funding is also an important topic -- but that doesn't mean it forbids discussion of unacceptable spam/ads. They can be 2 parallel discussions.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  you said > However, if the concrete implementation of trying to get money is unwanted and unexpected ads, then the correct focus of discussion is the criticism of that ad delivery method But he'd already said, prior to that > I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't). He'd already said no to them; you're both in agreement. There's nothing to argue about. Having agreed that nobody wants ads, the next step is to determine how to not have them (and their nastier big sibling, telemetry and malware, which will follow) by providing funding. (edited for brevity)

bitwize 7y ago

> or getting hired by FAANG But that way, you're still likely funding your project through ad scumbaggery, you're just adding a layer of indirection.

SquishyPanda23 7y ago

Open source project funding is a major open problem, which is something many people agree on. It can't sustain if we don't solve that. What I don't see is the fairness argument. Developers have legal means to restrict commercial use of their software. The community has for decades had a conversation about licensing and none of this is new territory. These developers chose to volunteer their time to corporations. If they don't like that choice they should change their behavior not make demands of others. Otherwise it's just the high tech equivalent of the common street scam where somebody hands you an object and then demands a donation if you take it.

moron4hire 7y ago
Oh sure, but Industry has also browbeat people into believing the GPL is completely untenable. I've yet to see an original monetization suggestion in these threads. People have tried it all. Companies and devs prefer to wait for a poor sap to make a free-as-in-beer version and then stiff them on tips.
- CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
  Not sure it’s a good one, but how about this: A hub of software, like github or npm could acts as a general mediator of funding. A new license could be designed such that entitles above a certain size would have to donate a percentage of revenue to the hub, while also reporting which software they which to license (this only acts as a kind of voting for where to place investments, the donation size is fixed). The hub in question could then spend the income on the various projects taking popularity in account for prioritzation.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
yebyen 7y ago
> These developers chose to volunteer their time to corporations. Not so, these developers chose to volunteer their time to benefit the commons, and corporations occupy the same spaces once in a while. Whether or not there are abusive companies who stake out those projects for rent-seeking, to build walled gardens of their own, looting the commons making money for themselves and giving nothing back, is really not a function of the person who did something good for everyone's benefit. We shouldn't be asking the person who is doing the good thing to change, friend! Reciprocity is an evolutionarily acquired trait, and while you can't count on favors to be repaid all of the time, anyway this is not a requirement in order for us to benefit from reciprocity. Students of psychology have understood this as one of the favorable characteristics of human behavior which enabled us to survive up to this point. The idea that you can give someone something and receive something bigger in return, while both parties benefit, has been a part of community building for as long as humans formed communities. I would like to share this Sandi Metz talk about it in case you have an hour and want to hear more, I'm not the student of Psychology and didn't make this stuff up myself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg > You're Insufficiently Persuasive by Sandi Metz

kyledrake 7y ago

> You're (possibly unintentionally) distorting/diverting the issue. Nobody is criticizing open source maintainers for trying to get funding in an abstract sense. Yes they're very good at providing speech and debate lip service about wanting to sustain OSS devs, but then when we actually want to do anything except hold out a tip jar they treat OSS devs like trash. The person that wanted to throw people in prison didn't seem particularly interested in our ability to get funding https://twitter.com/kyledrake/status/1166801737534984192 https://twitter.com/kyledrake/status/1166801737534984192

coding123 7y ago

I disagree with Patreon and FAANG as possible socially acceptable routes, and have no problem with ads in the console. (Grant's are clearly OK). So I guess that might be subjective? I do think that instead of everyone putting in an "ad dependency" is not the best way to go about it, but to at least directly negotiate with cloud companies to do it would be awesome.

wmf 7y ago

if the concrete implementation of trying to get money is unwanted and unexpected Every method of funding open source either doesn't work or is unwanted, so arguments like "get paid, just not this way" are disingenuous. When that guy tries a different approach instead of ads, people will be attacking him just as much. It's time to move the discussion on to "all possible funding methods are unpalatable, so what's the least bad method?"