3 ms·

The closest to that model is Tidelift, though last I checked, they still sell only add-on assurances, not permission to use the software to begin with.

agustif 7y ago
Yeah I'm aware of Tidelift but it's still very not much a real thing for me. Good for enterprises I guess. It's just something I randomly but cyclically think about, here some old notes about it: What if GitHub Stars = Money Problem? I might want to give back to open source, but I’m too ignorant or lazy to actually do it. Create an indie platform that lets you create a one time or subscription donation to all your GitHub innteractions based on Stars, issues open, etc… If I have 1000 Stars and donate 100 dollars, each repo would get 10 cents, if 10 more people have starred the same repo than I have, the repo owner would get 1 dollar. So if she or he has 1000 stars, that’d mean she or he gets 100$ Stars are not so meaningless anymore. After first donation to a new repo, open an issue encouraging to get to minimum payout amount faster by pushing a badge into readme as a PR. PS: Original personal note from 23 may 2019, If I recall properly this was pre GhSponsors
- kemitchell 7y ago
  There have been several attempts to create "tip jars" for open source that automatically split a total commitment across multiple projects or developers. Several ran aground on implementation issues like money transmitter regulation and payment processing. But even when the systems worked well and stayed out of trouble, they just didn't see that much money flowing through. Two subspecies of the tip jar rose to public prominence in the last few years. Crowdfunding sites like Patreon focus on perks. Both legally and practically, they eschew "donation", partly to avoid money transmission issues, partly because people are just more likely to give money for something in return, rather than gratuitously. Open software coders who've done well via these platforms number very few and often offer substantial perks that appeal to "enterprise" customers at high tiers. Sites like OpenCollective focus on raising for groups, rather than individuals. The amounts committed to groups can sometimes reach significant looking totals in the thousands of dollars, but splitting among contributors often cuts the per-individual number down significantly. The transparency and other groupware features put social pressure on individual developers not to take too much.

agustif 7y ago

Yeah I'm aware of Tidelift but it's still very not much a real thing for me. Good for enterprises I guess. It's just something I randomly but cyclically think about, here some old notes about it: What if GitHub Stars = Money Problem? I might want to give back to open source, but I’m too ignorant or lazy to actually do it. Create an indie platform that lets you create a one time or subscription donation to all your GitHub innteractions based on Stars, issues open, etc… If I have 1000 Stars and donate 100 dollars, each repo would get 10 cents, if 10 more people have starred the same repo than I have, the repo owner would get 1 dollar. So if she or he has 1000 stars, that’d mean she or he gets 100$ Stars are not so meaningless anymore. After first donation to a new repo, open an issue encouraging to get to minimum payout amount faster by pushing a badge into readme as a PR. PS: Original personal note from 23 may 2019, If I recall properly this was pre GhSponsors

kemitchell 7y ago
There have been several attempts to create "tip jars" for open source that automatically split a total commitment across multiple projects or developers. Several ran aground on implementation issues like money transmitter regulation and payment processing. But even when the systems worked well and stayed out of trouble, they just didn't see that much money flowing through. Two subspecies of the tip jar rose to public prominence in the last few years. Crowdfunding sites like Patreon focus on perks. Both legally and practically, they eschew "donation", partly to avoid money transmission issues, partly because people are just more likely to give money for something in return, rather than gratuitously. Open software coders who've done well via these platforms number very few and often offer substantial perks that appeal to "enterprise" customers at high tiers. Sites like OpenCollective focus on raising for groups, rather than individuals. The amounts committed to groups can sometimes reach significant looking totals in the thousands of dollars, but splitting among contributors often cuts the per-individual number down significantly. The transparency and other groupware features put social pressure on individual developers not to take too much.