6 ms·

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 a

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)
  - kortilla 7y ago
    You’re missing the point and illustrating it further. The comment was garbage because it derailed the entire discussion around terminal ads to try to direct it to FOSS funding. It doesn’t matter if they both agree that text ads are bad. It’s basically a “think of the children” derailment except it’s “think of the poor foss dev”.
    - jalfresi 7y ago
      I think you are making an extremely valid point; i often see the same “think of the children” argument made when discussing advertising and the web. Likewise, no one is saying websites shouldn’t have an income.
      - archgoon 7y ago
        If you're only talking about how you don't like the solution; and refuse to talk about the underlying problem; you're going to keep seeing the bad solution again and again and again. Here everyone says they don't like ads; and then are shocked that people want to talk about why ads are showing up and what to do about that.
        kortilla 7y ago
        Ads show up regardless of funding. Cut the bullshit. Look at how many ads are on cable television and even pay for news websites.
  - detuur 7y ago
    Please stop having "you said he said" discussions. If someone clarifies their position that they meant to say something else than you read, please accept it in good faith and don't see this as an invitation to hark back to their previous messages. This comment is not aimed at you specifically, but everyone in this comment thread who engages in this pointless arguing.
heyoni 7y ago
Since when are FAANG companies considered to be closed source? Have any of them snatched up maintainers to continue development behind closed doors? There are examples of large corporations hiring maintainers to work on open source and keep those projects open source. I believe pypi is an example of that.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I am fairly certain that Apple has hired people who previously worked on permissively-licensed projects to work on the closed-source fork.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    I'd like to see that backed up, really. There are certainly criticisms to be made of how Apple has handled their open source projects (slow to update and push out new releases, not great at cooperating with upstream projects when Apple has forked them, typically cryptic Apple communication practices). But if Apple has taken open source projects, created closed-source forks of them, and hired original developers of and/or major contributors to the original open source project to maintain and develop the closed source fork without contributing back to the open source original, none of them immediately come to mind.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Apple certainly hires people from their open source projects and keeps closed-source forks. Most of the changes make their way back to their original projects, though, but the caveat is that this only seems to happen if the project is used heavily outside of Apple and after the feature has "shipped" (which may be a while after the code was actually written).
    - ollieshmollie 7y ago
      I remember finding an article on HN about a developer for FreeBSD going to work on Mac OS[1], before returning to work in open source. Isn't the Mac OS user space an example of what you describe? [1] https://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/ https://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/
koolba 7y ago
> That's clear as can be. He's asking the same question I am, how do we get sufficient funding for these projects. We don't. Only a fool would expect to make a living wage giving something away for free. From the beginning FOSS has been either interested individuals or employees at corporations with a vested interest. There's no reason we should expect that John Q Developer independently working on a bunch of NPM modules to be compensated by the world at large.
- patcon 7y ago
  > There's no reason we should expect that John Q Developer independently working on a bunch of NPM modules to be compensated by the world at large. With all due respect, I feel this is a lack of imagination. We could have said the same thing about soup kitchens, or basic income, or social welfare, or anything else that doesn't cleanly draw profit. So yes, it doesn't work. At least not until we demand it does and distort the legal, social, and cultural frameworks around it. As one solitary example, what about a shift to using copyfarleft licensing that only allows MIT-level freedom to nonprofits and co-operatives, while for-profit orgs pay fees instead of just leeching. This has the added bonus of shifting benefit to platform cooperatives, which governments are already starting to ideologically favour as we all see the gleaming metal edge of platform capitalism. There are a hundred more options if we believe building the commons is better than milking it dry.
  - koolba 7y ago
    > With all due respect, I feel this is a lack of imagination. We could have said the same thing about soup kitchens, or basic income, or social welfare, or anything else that doesn't cleanly draw profit. Those are all driven by charity for the destitute. It’s not meant to be a patronage paid to starving artists. On the contrary the able bodied are expected to not draw from that well if they can provide for themselves so that more remains for the truly deserving. > So yes, it doesn't work. At least not until we demand it does and distort the legal, social, and cultural frameworks around it. As one solitary example, what about a shift to using copyfarleft licensing that only allows MIT-level freedom to nonprofits and co-operatives, while for-profit orgs pay fees instead of just leeching. This has the added bonus of shifting benefit to platform cooperatives, which governments are already starting to ideologically favour as we all see the gleaming metal edge of platform capitalism. There’s no such thing as partial BSD style licensing. You’re either all the way there or you’re not. Favored status to non profits is no different than discriminating from “evil” usage. I’m not saying one can’t do that, just that there’s no half measures. I make it a point to contribute to BSD style software that I actually use and explicitly do not contribute to “shared source” bullshit. > There are a hundred more options if we believe building the commons is better than milking it dry. I don’t see anything going dry. The system has worked fine till now. What’s changed is the unrealistic expectation of hand outs for something you’ve already agreed to give away for free.

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)
- kortilla 7y ago
  You’re missing the point and illustrating it further. The comment was garbage because it derailed the entire discussion around terminal ads to try to direct it to FOSS funding. It doesn’t matter if they both agree that text ads are bad. It’s basically a “think of the children” derailment except it’s “think of the poor foss dev”.
  - jalfresi 7y ago
    I think you are making an extremely valid point; i often see the same “think of the children” argument made when discussing advertising and the web. Likewise, no one is saying websites shouldn’t have an income.
    - archgoon 7y ago
      If you're only talking about how you don't like the solution; and refuse to talk about the underlying problem; you're going to keep seeing the bad solution again and again and again. Here everyone says they don't like ads; and then are shocked that people want to talk about why ads are showing up and what to do about that.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        Ads show up regardless of funding. Cut the bullshit. Look at how many ads are on cable television and even pay for news websites.
- detuur 7y ago
  Please stop having "you said he said" discussions. If someone clarifies their position that they meant to say something else than you read, please accept it in good faith and don't see this as an invitation to hark back to their previous messages. This comment is not aimed at you specifically, but everyone in this comment thread who engages in this pointless arguing.

heyoni 7y ago

Since when are FAANG companies considered to be closed source? Have any of them snatched up maintainers to continue development behind closed doors? There are examples of large corporations hiring maintainers to work on open source and keep those projects open source. I believe pypi is an example of that.

saagarjha 7y ago
I am fairly certain that Apple has hired people who previously worked on permissively-licensed projects to work on the closed-source fork.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  I'd like to see that backed up, really. There are certainly criticisms to be made of how Apple has handled their open source projects (slow to update and push out new releases, not great at cooperating with upstream projects when Apple has forked them, typically cryptic Apple communication practices). But if Apple has taken open source projects, created closed-source forks of them, and hired original developers of and/or major contributors to the original open source project to maintain and develop the closed source fork without contributing back to the open source original, none of them immediately come to mind.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Apple certainly hires people from their open source projects and keeps closed-source forks. Most of the changes make their way back to their original projects, though, but the caveat is that this only seems to happen if the project is used heavily outside of Apple and after the feature has "shipped" (which may be a while after the code was actually written).
  - ollieshmollie 7y ago
    I remember finding an article on HN about a developer for FreeBSD going to work on Mac OS[1], before returning to work in open source. Isn't the Mac OS user space an example of what you describe? [1] https://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/ https://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/

koolba 7y ago

> That's clear as can be. He's asking the same question I am, how do we get sufficient funding for these projects. We don't. Only a fool would expect to make a living wage giving something away for free. From the beginning FOSS has been either interested individuals or employees at corporations with a vested interest. There's no reason we should expect that John Q Developer independently working on a bunch of NPM modules to be compensated by the world at large.

patcon 7y ago
> There's no reason we should expect that John Q Developer independently working on a bunch of NPM modules to be compensated by the world at large. With all due respect, I feel this is a lack of imagination. We could have said the same thing about soup kitchens, or basic income, or social welfare, or anything else that doesn't cleanly draw profit. So yes, it doesn't work. At least not until we demand it does and distort the legal, social, and cultural frameworks around it. As one solitary example, what about a shift to using copyfarleft licensing that only allows MIT-level freedom to nonprofits and co-operatives, while for-profit orgs pay fees instead of just leeching. This has the added bonus of shifting benefit to platform cooperatives, which governments are already starting to ideologically favour as we all see the gleaming metal edge of platform capitalism. There are a hundred more options if we believe building the commons is better than milking it dry.
- koolba 7y ago
  > With all due respect, I feel this is a lack of imagination. We could have said the same thing about soup kitchens, or basic income, or social welfare, or anything else that doesn't cleanly draw profit. Those are all driven by charity for the destitute. It’s not meant to be a patronage paid to starving artists. On the contrary the able bodied are expected to not draw from that well if they can provide for themselves so that more remains for the truly deserving. > So yes, it doesn't work. At least not until we demand it does and distort the legal, social, and cultural frameworks around it. As one solitary example, what about a shift to using copyfarleft licensing that only allows MIT-level freedom to nonprofits and co-operatives, while for-profit orgs pay fees instead of just leeching. This has the added bonus of shifting benefit to platform cooperatives, which governments are already starting to ideologically favour as we all see the gleaming metal edge of platform capitalism. There’s no such thing as partial BSD style licensing. You’re either all the way there or you’re not. Favored status to non profits is no different than discriminating from “evil” usage. I’m not saying one can’t do that, just that there’s no half measures. I make it a point to contribute to BSD style software that I actually use and explicitly do not contribute to “shared source” bullshit. > There are a hundred more options if we believe building the commons is better than milking it dry. I don’t see anything going dry. The system has worked fine till now. What’s changed is the unrealistic expectation of hand outs for something you’ve already agreed to give away for free.