11 ms·

I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it.

I think that this essay is fundamentally brilliant, but doesn't come out and yell the self-evident truth: the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. And man, do I ever hope that they do. There's no other entity in the ecosystem that even approaches the role Github plays, with all due respect to Gitlab and the rest of the also-rans. It'd be wonderful if they did the same thing, but in the end, they are going to be the contrarian 2%. It's important to remember that GH sponsors isn't even out of beta, yet - you still have to apply and make sure that all of your tax docs are in order. One small proposal I'd make is that I suggest Sponsors and Pool could exist happily in parallel. I believe that there's a meaningful difference between being the patron of a developer and feeling like you're backing a creator with feelings and a story and a family... and wanting to be a good citizen that has an approved list of projects that I benefit from and want to support. I can sponsor Matz, get his updates and feel good about knowing I am counted as a supporter AND set aside $$$ per month to contribute to all of the tools I use in my projects simply because it's the right thing to do and I want those projects to exist for the long term. They are completely different initiatives. Patreon vs Humble Bundle, if you will. Perhaps most critically, Github could keep absorbing the cost of processing payments to sponsored developers but also announce that they plan to hold back 3% of your monthly pool amount to cover CC processing fees. I think most people would be more than fine with this. But if Github isn't on board, this is all just speculative fiction. Please, if you work at Github, make this happen.

colinmcd 6y ago
Author here - 100% agree on all fronts! I was dancing around this conclusion but it really does need to be GitHub. And I agree people would be fine paying their own fees if it came to that. Also, in that case, if someone is donating a non-trivial amount, they're incentivized to fund their wallet with a cheaper payment method like an ACH transfer.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  I just want to point out that in Europe we have 0-fee SEPA transfers that also work for regular payments. I'm not sure why nobody makes use of that more really. There are simple-as-paypal solutions for it, and given the amount that CC processing costs I'd have expected it to be picked up more. Maybe someone here has practical experience to share on why it's not that easy?
  - maccard 6y ago
    What happens if the transaction is fraudulent?
    - black_puppydog 6y ago
      This might actually be the right question to ask, thanks for poking. :) From a customer's perspective, fraudulent transactions are handled in the best way possible. Here's Stripes docs on it [1]: > Customers can dispute a payment through their bank on a “no questions asked” basis up to eight weeks after their account is debited. Any disputes within this period are automatically honored. > After eight weeks and up to 13 months, a customer can only dispute a payment with their bank if the debit is considered unauthorized. If this occurs, we automatically provide the bank with the mandate that the customer approved. This does not guarantee cancellation of the dispute; the bank can still decide that the debit was unauthorized and the customer is entitled to a refund. > Unlike credit card disputes, SEPA Direct Debit disputes are final and there is no process for appeal. If a customer successfully disputes a payment, you must contact them if you want to resolve the situation. So for a small company I can see how this process would be stressful. Although I'm not sure what the rate of fraud by the customers would be. After all, the customer still signed a contract. But that would likely need litigation then. So, I haven't been on the vendor side of that. Not sure how much more stressful it is than CC, and if it's worth a few % of your revenue... [1]: https://stripe.com/docs/payments/sepa-debit#disputed-payments https://stripe.com/docs/payments/sepa-debit#disputed-payment...
      - rowland66 6y ago
        What you are describing here are SEPA direct debits. Many countries including the USA have a similar instrument. While it is free for the consumer from whom money is being collected, it is generally not free for the business that is collecting the money. So in that way, it is the same as credit cards, but the fee is a lot less.
        black_puppydog 6y ago
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  Can I be fair & frank? Your article does raise a few great points... about Github specifically. But not about funding sustainable OSS development in general. Open source also is not a business model. It's a principle that relates to intellectual rights and copyright: the author explicitly stating that they won't exercise their rights as to what others do with their work, provided then that others share any modifications under the same terms of use. That's open source in a nutshell. The direct implication, then, is that any business model that hinges on selling licenses that give a very restricted permission on the use of (a copy of) the software, is excluded. Which is exactly how games and products from Adobe or Microsoft are sold: you buy a license - a permission from the original author - to use the software. Github itself has never been a marketplace to sell software. There are no affordances that allows anyone to sell and buy license keys or whatever. It's always been a descendant in the spirit of SourceForge or Freshmeat: a platform for hosting codebases via version control. No more, no less. Github pushes open source as a matter of principle because it's - above all - excellent marketing that doesn't need complex tooling: simply adding a LICENSE.md file with the GPL or MIT license is already enough. Open source is not flawed, as you state. It's above all a principled choice you make. And it's a choice you make depending on the type of value you want to extract from the project you're writing. In your article, you are lamenting the low income numbers from publishing code under an open source license on Github. Well, ask yourself this: Maybe it's not open source that's flawed, but the other way around: The tools you choose to extract value not fitting your expectations. If you really want to monetize software, then maybe you're better off looking into a closed source license and a platform that does allow you to sell license keys. Much like what Sublime or InteliJ and such do. It's true though that funding Open Source projects is problematic. But this has always been true for any non-profit venture: Ranging from charity, culture, environmentalist causes or other types of citizen activism that doesn't involve setting up a private business. Open Source software is no exception, and unless you're able to charge for consultancy or derivative products (e.g. a service build on top of OSS software), you're funding options are very much limited to grants, philanthropy or donations. Nadia Eghbal did an excellent study for the Ford Foundation that sums up the issues with funding open source nicely: Roads & Bridges, the unseen labor behind our digital infrastructure: https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-reports/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/ https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-report... It's a recommended read on this topic. Beyond that, the pool & wallet solution you're proposing is above all an attempt to incentivise a specific type of funding: private, individual donations. I think it's a great idea in it's own right, and something worth considering. But it should be clear that it's a far cry from a silver bullet that will solve the disparity between the many profiting from labor of a few against a low financial reward for their efforts. Personally, I think that if you're willing to work on your own open source projects, you have to mindful that you exclude the possibility to directly derive wealth from what you've build. It's up to you then to figure out the alternatives: e.g. selling training, workshops, support,... or maybe getting hired by a company who are willing to let you work part time on your OSS project, or getting publicly funded because your project caters to the public good (e.g. culture, health, education, mobility,...)
imtringued 6y ago
This is probably meant to be a feature request aimed at the Github team. They introduced a sponsorship program and now that it's gaining traction people want a more streamlined and optimized product.
- peteforde 6y ago
  I believe that it's a mistake to compare sponsorship and a monthly pool as the OP suggests, as they are motivated by completely different instincts. Patreon vs. Humble Bundle, as I said elsewhere.
jmiskovic 6y ago
So we delegate complete control over open source financing channel to Microsoft, because it's most conveniant option? Sounds a bit insane. I do use both GitHub and its Sponsors feature, but I'm still hoping for open source community to come to consensus to use a service from non-profit organization like Mozilla or EFF.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  This wouldn't prevent you sending cash to the developer in an envelope, just like Github existing doesn't prevent you hosting your project elsewhere
  - peteforde 6y ago
    With my tongue firmly pressed in cheek, I think you're being charitable to imply that most loud FOSS champions are currently making any meaningful attempt to send money to developers. No, this is all about hating Github/Microsoft because they are big and because they won. Nothing in my comment is remotely controversial to realists.
  - jmiskovic 6y ago
    To send someone money I'd have to know their address (not viable). If they only accept money through GitHub sponsorship, then I'm prevented from donating in any other way. Which option do we (content creators) endorse? We definitely need to transition to better funding model. Seeking out donations and sponsorships is frustrating and that time could be better spent. GitHub Sponsors managed to solve most problems on technical level, but I'd like to see other options.
    - GordonS 6y ago
      > To send someone money I'd have to know their address You could just ask them? I recently donated to an OSS project for which the maintainer didn't publish any means of accepting donations - I simply asked and he sent his PayPal address. Another option would be for maintainers to publish a Bitcoin address in their profile - but again, if not already present, just ask.
ekianjo 6y ago
> the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. Yes, let's encourage another walled-garden controlled by a dominant player which would be benefiting from FOSS donations (keeping % of it) while doing nothing to make GitHub a FOSS platform at the same time.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Please inform yourselve. GitHub does not take a single penny! They even cover payment fees. https://github.com/sponsors#:~:text=GitHub%20does%20not%20charge%20fees,developers%20and%20organizations%20you%20fund https://github.com/sponsors#:~:text=GitHub%20does%20not%20ch....
- peteforde 6y ago
  First, they don't even cover the cost of their credit card processing. They even used to match donations up to $5000. This is clearly not a profit center for them. What it is, actually, is excellent long-term business sense. They know that maintaining open source is draining, often thankless and demoralizing. Making sure that their best assets are provided for is just smart. But also, your attitude is wishful thinking, like Linux on grandma's desktop. And are you seriously implying that Github isn't a FOSS platform? That seems intellectually dishonest at this stage.
  - justjosias 6y ago
    I just met a grandma that runs Linux. That surprised me. But it goes to show that sometimes wishful thinking can be achieved. If we make something as a community that can replace GitHub in convenience and spread awareness of the problems with GitHub being our main code hosting platform, we may be able to convince the wider community to use a platform for FOSS that is itself FOSS (which is what I believe ekianjo was talking about).
    - peteforde 6y ago
      I mean, if GitLab and the rest of the also-rans can't make a dent in Github's market share, I don't understand where you think this market disrupter is going to emerge from unless there's a grand migration to something Next that Github inexplicably is not able to adapt to. I wouldn't get your hopes up.
pydry 6y ago
The only thing really keeping me on GitHub is stars. I have a fundamental objection to entrusting open source to Microsoft. If gitlab implemented this feature Id probably move tomorrow.
- justjosias 6y ago
  Gitea supports this, and https://codeberg.org https://codeberg.org is a good and fairly popular Gitea instance.
- samanthalee233 6y ago
  Hey there, we do have this feature at GitLab, just FYI: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/#star-a-project https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/#star-a-project
  - pydry 6y ago
    I know, but I'll be starting from zero if I do move.
slightwinder 6y ago
> the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. I disagree. What this need is a popular, well known and trustable organisation with enough money to invest into this. Github could be this organisation, but other could do that to, like Mozilla for example, or the FSF, Patreon, Facebook, Apple, maybe even google if they can sell a vision of them not shutting it down 6 monts later. What is needed is awarness of such an option. Which would work better of course when integrated into the platform. But patreon seems to have proofen that it's also possible to do this with external services. Also a trustable institution to handle the money And finally a decent interface to manage your sponsorings, which also means someone doing the work in the background to figure out whether a project accepts donations and how. Would be easy if the platform supports it somewhat automatically, but could also be done manually for projects on other platforms. I would even go a step further and not limit this to open source projects, but the whole web. Add a simple button into the browser to allow sponsoring for the actual visited url. With some background-service which is smart enough to figure out whether the visited url is a project on github/gitlab/sourceforge, or a blog, a podcast, some content-company , a streamer, or some dude on twitter with something you wanna support. And if nothing can found to support, an issue is created and the humans in the background will figure out how to support what you consider as supportable, and will inform you if something was found. And with time some schemas and APIs will grow so platforms will allow automation fof this.
- peteforde 6y ago
  I am completely puzzled why you'd say that you need a "popular, well known and trustable organization with enough money to invest in this". How is the largest developer ecosystem in human history not the exact entity to do this? But then you go on to suggest Facebook, Apple or Google... I'm not sure we're experiencing the same zeitgeist. Is Trump president where you are?
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    > How is the largest developer ecosystem in human history not the exact entity to do this? I'm not saying github can't do that, just disagreeing that github is the ONLY one capable of doing it. > But then you go on to suggest Facebook, Apple or Google... They are not worse than Microsoft in that regard. If Microsofts Github is acceptable, then so are them. > Is Trump president where you are? His ponyranch is not even on the same continent as me.
EGreg 6y ago
Many on HN have noticed, I have a serious philosophical issue with centralization and closed source software. Every time I see people say “X is the only one who can do it, I hope X is gonna do it but they won’t” this is part of the problem. I am going to post this link right now on HN, under the title “A decentralized model for funding open source” which an entirely decentralized approach to funding open source projects, journalism and more. And we are launching it Q4 of this year. Once we do, it will spur permissionless innovation. Look, VOIP disrupted phone companies, Web disrupted AOL, drove many costs to almost zero. Just in the last 20 years. We can do the same here. Stop waiting “Please” for GitHub.

colinmcd 6y ago

Author here - 100% agree on all fronts! I was dancing around this conclusion but it really does need to be GitHub. And I agree people would be fine paying their own fees if it came to that. Also, in that case, if someone is donating a non-trivial amount, they're incentivized to fund their wallet with a cheaper payment method like an ACH transfer.

black_puppydog 6y ago
I just want to point out that in Europe we have 0-fee SEPA transfers that also work for regular payments. I'm not sure why nobody makes use of that more really. There are simple-as-paypal solutions for it, and given the amount that CC processing costs I'd have expected it to be picked up more. Maybe someone here has practical experience to share on why it's not that easy?
- maccard 6y ago
  What happens if the transaction is fraudulent?
  - black_puppydog 6y ago
    This might actually be the right question to ask, thanks for poking. :) From a customer's perspective, fraudulent transactions are handled in the best way possible. Here's Stripes docs on it [1]: > Customers can dispute a payment through their bank on a “no questions asked” basis up to eight weeks after their account is debited. Any disputes within this period are automatically honored. > After eight weeks and up to 13 months, a customer can only dispute a payment with their bank if the debit is considered unauthorized. If this occurs, we automatically provide the bank with the mandate that the customer approved. This does not guarantee cancellation of the dispute; the bank can still decide that the debit was unauthorized and the customer is entitled to a refund. > Unlike credit card disputes, SEPA Direct Debit disputes are final and there is no process for appeal. If a customer successfully disputes a payment, you must contact them if you want to resolve the situation. So for a small company I can see how this process would be stressful. Although I'm not sure what the rate of fraud by the customers would be. After all, the customer still signed a contract. But that would likely need litigation then. So, I haven't been on the vendor side of that. Not sure how much more stressful it is than CC, and if it's worth a few % of your revenue... [1]: https://stripe.com/docs/payments/sepa-debit#disputed-payments https://stripe.com/docs/payments/sepa-debit#disputed-payment...
    - rowland66 6y ago
      What you are describing here are SEPA direct debits. Many countries including the USA have a similar instrument. While it is free for the consumer from whom money is being collected, it is generally not free for the business that is collecting the money. So in that way, it is the same as credit cards, but the fee is a lot less.
      - black_puppydog 6y ago
CaptArmchair 6y ago
Can I be fair & frank? Your article does raise a few great points... about Github specifically. But not about funding sustainable OSS development in general. Open source also is not a business model. It's a principle that relates to intellectual rights and copyright: the author explicitly stating that they won't exercise their rights as to what others do with their work, provided then that others share any modifications under the same terms of use. That's open source in a nutshell. The direct implication, then, is that any business model that hinges on selling licenses that give a very restricted permission on the use of (a copy of) the software, is excluded. Which is exactly how games and products from Adobe or Microsoft are sold: you buy a license - a permission from the original author - to use the software. Github itself has never been a marketplace to sell software. There are no affordances that allows anyone to sell and buy license keys or whatever. It's always been a descendant in the spirit of SourceForge or Freshmeat: a platform for hosting codebases via version control. No more, no less. Github pushes open source as a matter of principle because it's - above all - excellent marketing that doesn't need complex tooling: simply adding a LICENSE.md file with the GPL or MIT license is already enough. Open source is not flawed, as you state. It's above all a principled choice you make. And it's a choice you make depending on the type of value you want to extract from the project you're writing. In your article, you are lamenting the low income numbers from publishing code under an open source license on Github. Well, ask yourself this: Maybe it's not open source that's flawed, but the other way around: The tools you choose to extract value not fitting your expectations. If you really want to monetize software, then maybe you're better off looking into a closed source license and a platform that does allow you to sell license keys. Much like what Sublime or InteliJ and such do. It's true though that funding Open Source projects is problematic. But this has always been true for any non-profit venture: Ranging from charity, culture, environmentalist causes or other types of citizen activism that doesn't involve setting up a private business. Open Source software is no exception, and unless you're able to charge for consultancy or derivative products (e.g. a service build on top of OSS software), you're funding options are very much limited to grants, philanthropy or donations. Nadia Eghbal did an excellent study for the Ford Foundation that sums up the issues with funding open source nicely: Roads & Bridges, the unseen labor behind our digital infrastructure: https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-reports/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/ https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-report... It's a recommended read on this topic. Beyond that, the pool & wallet solution you're proposing is above all an attempt to incentivise a specific type of funding: private, individual donations. I think it's a great idea in it's own right, and something worth considering. But it should be clear that it's a far cry from a silver bullet that will solve the disparity between the many profiting from labor of a few against a low financial reward for their efforts. Personally, I think that if you're willing to work on your own open source projects, you have to mindful that you exclude the possibility to directly derive wealth from what you've build. It's up to you then to figure out the alternatives: e.g. selling training, workshops, support,... or maybe getting hired by a company who are willing to let you work part time on your OSS project, or getting publicly funded because your project caters to the public good (e.g. culture, health, education, mobility,...)

imtringued 6y ago

This is probably meant to be a feature request aimed at the Github team. They introduced a sponsorship program and now that it's gaining traction people want a more streamlined and optimized product.

peteforde 6y ago
I believe that it's a mistake to compare sponsorship and a monthly pool as the OP suggests, as they are motivated by completely different instincts. Patreon vs. Humble Bundle, as I said elsewhere.

jmiskovic 6y ago

So we delegate complete control over open source financing channel to Microsoft, because it's most conveniant option? Sounds a bit insane. I do use both GitHub and its Sponsors feature, but I'm still hoping for open source community to come to consensus to use a service from non-profit organization like Mozilla or EFF.

ubercow13 6y ago
This wouldn't prevent you sending cash to the developer in an envelope, just like Github existing doesn't prevent you hosting your project elsewhere
- peteforde 6y ago
  With my tongue firmly pressed in cheek, I think you're being charitable to imply that most loud FOSS champions are currently making any meaningful attempt to send money to developers. No, this is all about hating Github/Microsoft because they are big and because they won. Nothing in my comment is remotely controversial to realists.
- jmiskovic 6y ago
  To send someone money I'd have to know their address (not viable). If they only accept money through GitHub sponsorship, then I'm prevented from donating in any other way. Which option do we (content creators) endorse? We definitely need to transition to better funding model. Seeking out donations and sponsorships is frustrating and that time could be better spent. GitHub Sponsors managed to solve most problems on technical level, but I'd like to see other options.
  - GordonS 6y ago
    > To send someone money I'd have to know their address You could just ask them? I recently donated to an OSS project for which the maintainer didn't publish any means of accepting donations - I simply asked and he sent his PayPal address. Another option would be for maintainers to publish a Bitcoin address in their profile - but again, if not already present, just ask.

ekianjo 6y ago

> the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. Yes, let's encourage another walled-garden controlled by a dominant player which would be benefiting from FOSS donations (keeping % of it) while doing nothing to make GitHub a FOSS platform at the same time.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
Please inform yourselve. GitHub does not take a single penny! They even cover payment fees. https://github.com/sponsors#:~:text=GitHub%20does%20not%20charge%20fees,developers%20and%20organizations%20you%20fund https://github.com/sponsors#:~:text=GitHub%20does%20not%20ch....
peteforde 6y ago
First, they don't even cover the cost of their credit card processing. They even used to match donations up to $5000. This is clearly not a profit center for them. What it is, actually, is excellent long-term business sense. They know that maintaining open source is draining, often thankless and demoralizing. Making sure that their best assets are provided for is just smart. But also, your attitude is wishful thinking, like Linux on grandma's desktop. And are you seriously implying that Github isn't a FOSS platform? That seems intellectually dishonest at this stage.
- justjosias 6y ago
  I just met a grandma that runs Linux. That surprised me. But it goes to show that sometimes wishful thinking can be achieved. If we make something as a community that can replace GitHub in convenience and spread awareness of the problems with GitHub being our main code hosting platform, we may be able to convince the wider community to use a platform for FOSS that is itself FOSS (which is what I believe ekianjo was talking about).
  - peteforde 6y ago
    I mean, if GitLab and the rest of the also-rans can't make a dent in Github's market share, I don't understand where you think this market disrupter is going to emerge from unless there's a grand migration to something Next that Github inexplicably is not able to adapt to. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

pydry 6y ago

The only thing really keeping me on GitHub is stars. I have a fundamental objection to entrusting open source to Microsoft. If gitlab implemented this feature Id probably move tomorrow.

justjosias 6y ago
Gitea supports this, and https://codeberg.org https://codeberg.org is a good and fairly popular Gitea instance.
samanthalee233 6y ago
Hey there, we do have this feature at GitLab, just FYI: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/#star-a-project https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/#star-a-project
- pydry 6y ago
  I know, but I'll be starting from zero if I do move.

slightwinder 6y ago

> the ONLY way this ever takes off is if Github does it. I disagree. What this need is a popular, well known and trustable organisation with enough money to invest into this. Github could be this organisation, but other could do that to, like Mozilla for example, or the FSF, Patreon, Facebook, Apple, maybe even google if they can sell a vision of them not shutting it down 6 monts later. What is needed is awarness of such an option. Which would work better of course when integrated into the platform. But patreon seems to have proofen that it's also possible to do this with external services. Also a trustable institution to handle the money And finally a decent interface to manage your sponsorings, which also means someone doing the work in the background to figure out whether a project accepts donations and how. Would be easy if the platform supports it somewhat automatically, but could also be done manually for projects on other platforms. I would even go a step further and not limit this to open source projects, but the whole web. Add a simple button into the browser to allow sponsoring for the actual visited url. With some background-service which is smart enough to figure out whether the visited url is a project on github/gitlab/sourceforge, or a blog, a podcast, some content-company , a streamer, or some dude on twitter with something you wanna support. And if nothing can found to support, an issue is created and the humans in the background will figure out how to support what you consider as supportable, and will inform you if something was found. And with time some schemas and APIs will grow so platforms will allow automation fof this.

peteforde 6y ago
I am completely puzzled why you'd say that you need a "popular, well known and trustable organization with enough money to invest in this". How is the largest developer ecosystem in human history not the exact entity to do this? But then you go on to suggest Facebook, Apple or Google... I'm not sure we're experiencing the same zeitgeist. Is Trump president where you are?
- slightwinder 6y ago
  > How is the largest developer ecosystem in human history not the exact entity to do this? I'm not saying github can't do that, just disagreeing that github is the ONLY one capable of doing it. > But then you go on to suggest Facebook, Apple or Google... They are not worse than Microsoft in that regard. If Microsofts Github is acceptable, then so are them. > Is Trump president where you are? His ponyranch is not even on the same continent as me.

EGreg 6y ago

Many on HN have noticed, I have a serious philosophical issue with centralization and closed source software. Every time I see people say “X is the only one who can do it, I hope X is gonna do it but they won’t” this is part of the problem. I am going to post this link right now on HN, under the title “A decentralized model for funding open source” which an entirely decentralized approach to funding open source projects, journalism and more. And we are launching it Q4 of this year. Once we do, it will spur permissionless innovation. Look, VOIP disrupted phone companies, Web disrupted AOL, drove many costs to almost zero. Just in the last 20 years. We can do the same here. Stop waiting “Please” for GitHub.