3 ms·

> If you're a person that prefers to just do some work and not talk about it much, this kind of sponsorship model wont work. Marketing is a fact of life, I thi

by davidw 7y ago

> If you're a person that prefers to just do some work and not talk about it much, this kind of sponsorship model wont work. Marketing is a fact of life, I think. Of course, there's good marketing (making people who might enjoy your product aware of it) and bad marketing (annoying people), but if you hope to reap the benefits of having your work in front of a lot of people, you do have to reach them.

ronilan 7y ago
> but if you hope to reap the benefits of having your work in front of a lot of people What OP says, and you miss, is that some people are not interested in reaping benefits. They are interested in doing work. They are constrained by time and money, so yes, sponsorship can help their projects, but they are not in it for the reaping. If anything they will be happy to see a lot of people reap benefits from their work, not the other way around. How many are like that? I don’t know. Maybe not a lot, but some for sure.
- davidw 7y ago
  Well OP seemed to be unhappy about not getting the benefits of having people sponsor them with a model like this. There are tons of people who like to just go do stuff, and that's great! But if you don't promote it at all, certain avenues are not open to you.
jakobegger 7y ago
You assume that everyone works on their own projects. In that case, yes, you should probably market it, if nobody knows about your project it doesn't matter. I was more thinking about contributing to other projects. What incentive do I have for fixing an issue in someone elses repo? With this sponsorship model, the benefits will only go to the dev whose name is on the repo. It's going to be very hard to market yourself as the guy who fixes random issues in a bunch of unrelated projects.
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  Marketing yourself as someone who fixes bugs in unrelated projects is a noble cause. But the realities of oss are that you will likely get a fixed income job while some large corp will make loads more money off of your fixes and projects. I for one praise monetisation of open source and hope licensing will become more restrictive (i.e. if your company earns more than X$ then then you need to pay a license for it). Great engineering should be paid in freedom from 9 to 5 not just praise and contracts.

by davidw 7y ago

ronilan 7y ago

> but if you hope to reap the benefits of having your work in front of a lot of people What OP says, and you miss, is that some people are not interested in reaping benefits. They are interested in doing work. They are constrained by time and money, so yes, sponsorship can help their projects, but they are not in it for the reaping. If anything they will be happy to see a lot of people reap benefits from their work, not the other way around. How many are like that? I don’t know. Maybe not a lot, but some for sure.

davidw 7y ago
Well OP seemed to be unhappy about not getting the benefits of having people sponsor them with a model like this. There are tons of people who like to just go do stuff, and that's great! But if you don't promote it at all, certain avenues are not open to you.

jakobegger 7y ago

You assume that everyone works on their own projects. In that case, yes, you should probably market it, if nobody knows about your project it doesn't matter. I was more thinking about contributing to other projects. What incentive do I have for fixing an issue in someone elses repo? With this sponsorship model, the benefits will only go to the dev whose name is on the repo. It's going to be very hard to market yourself as the guy who fixes random issues in a bunch of unrelated projects.

ossworkerrights 7y ago
Marketing yourself as someone who fixes bugs in unrelated projects is a noble cause. But the realities of oss are that you will likely get a fixed income job while some large corp will make loads more money off of your fixes and projects. I for one praise monetisation of open source and hope licensing will become more restrictive (i.e. if your company earns more than X$ then then you need to pay a license for it). Great engineering should be paid in freedom from 9 to 5 not just praise and contracts.