4 ms·
First of all, bravo to Drew for trying to nudge the world in a positive direction. I was just wondering if he was running a fund that did exactly this, to pay
by imglorp 6y ago
First of all, bravo to Drew for trying to nudge the world in a positive direction.
I was just wondering if he was running a fund that did exactly this, to pay for a few open content creators and OSS developers. (Is there already a fund like he's sort of doing here?)
If he (or someone) did peel off these altruistic activities, they could (a) get donations from others of like mind, (b) continue to let Drew use his good sense to decide how to spread those funds out to the creators, and (c) keep Source Hut funds separate so its users got a more fair deal.
Even if he does keep them commingled, wouldn't mind paying for SH and having some of it go towards helping the community.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y agoYeah, I paid for SH and I'm happy to see that money going to the broader ecosystem, but I could see having a parent "advancement of FOSS" organization that then also contributed to sourcehut in addition to others. I could see an argument for sr.ht being the central entity, but it feels like an unnecessary commingling of concerns. By analogy, it feels like shipping a sha256 function in libc: It makes some sense, but I'd rather see it factored out into a crypto library.
- ddevault 6y agoI think this would be a good idea in the long term, and I'd like to set something like this up. Ambitions like making sure driver maintainers have access to the hardware they need, paying for security audits, and so on, would be great. The biggest resource that is scarce is time, though - so for the time being this is the easier approach.
- kick 6y agoIts users are getting a fair deal, though. They're getting the service they paid for, with significantly less downtime than GitHub, and Drew is being fully transparent about how funds are spent.