4 ms·

I also started with GitHub sponsors after reading about Caleb's post about sponsorware in May 2020 and have managed to grow my sponsorships since then to more t

I also started with GitHub sponsors after reading about Caleb's post about sponsorware in May 2020 and have managed to grow my sponsorships since then to more than $1k a month. To those who are interested how I did it: I'm the author of Material for MkDocs [1], a popular solution for technical documentation. I created a private fork called "Material for MkDocs Insiders [2]" where all new features landed since then and tied those features to funding goals at $ 500, $ 1,000 etc. The promise is that the moment a funding goal is hit, the features are merged back into the original repo and released for general availability. It works reasonably well so far, better that I would have thought. My Twitter following is rather small (700), but I'm posting a lot about Material for MkDocs and new features and try to engage the community. I guess if you have a large following like Caleb, you could up the amount in a few months, given that you have something on your hands that users want and solves a problem. [1]: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/ https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/ [2]: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/ https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/

SkyMarshal 6y ago
Thanks for the explanation. For clarification, does any subset of your community have access to the private version, like perhaps people paying a subscription fee or something? Or is that version completely hidden from everyone, and just used to develop and test new features until a funding threshold is met to release them into the public version?
- squidfunk 6y ago
  Sponsors have access to the private repository (I'm using GitHub's collaborator feature). I have several sponsor tiers and $10 a month or more will get you access to my sponsorware, which means you will be added to the private repository and can use the features immediately. What you're effectively getting is early access, so you can use the features before other users. The official documentation of my project lists exactly which features are "Insiders only", and which aren't. When the features tied to the funding goal that was hit are merged, everybody can use them. I try to always have sponsors-only features on higher tiers to keep sponsoring attractive. As I understand, Caleb does it with content and entire projects - I'm doing it with new features for an existing project. Also, I'm doing it fully transparent, disclosing how much I earn with this, which I think is crucial to build the necessary trust relationship.
  - DelightOne 6y ago
    How do you avoid malicious users publishing your content public? Or is it just not an issue yet?
    - cercatrova 6y ago
      I suppose it's licensed under a non open source license until it's released to the public. If so, you can prosecute such individuals who break the license.
      - jraph 6y ago
        Remaining open source but banning the user who leaks the source code from the repository could work too, no? (the RedHat way). So as a user, you can start some work based on the insider version and be confident that you will be able to release your work even if the insider version never goes public for some reason, instead of relying on a promise that the code will be released in an open source license.
        DelightOne 6y ago
        How to find out who leaked? Can you make github insert a kind of fingerprint?
      - squidfunk 6y ago
        It's MIT-licensed, as the original project. I have no interest in legal prosecution. Also, different licensing would make it more complicated for companies.
        bonestamp2 6y ago
        > different licensing would make it more complicated for companies True, although just removing a couple of words from the MIT license would still be a very attractive and easy to use license. Examples of words you might remove: "sell" and "sublicense".
akkartik 6y ago
I really like this model and want it to take over the world. It would solve two problems: compensating people for building open-source software, and replacing the notion of IP for software with something more sustainable. More people should stand up and say, "I made this, I want to make the world better, and I will add this to the commons that everyone can benefit from after I extract $X of value from it." A social norm of requiring people to "call their shot" in advance feels like a powerful counter-force to greed.
- jonas21 6y ago
  Okay, I have to ask: How is the current "notion of IP for software" not sustainable? And how is this model, which seems like it's just asking to fall into a tragedy of the commons, more sustainable? And finally, how is making something and holding it back until getting paid a certain amount a "counter-force to greed"? (to be clear, I don't have a problem with this -- if someone makes something, they're free to do what they want with it -- but I don't see how it's any more or less greedy than other options)
  - jdsalaro 6y ago
    > How is the current "notion of IP for software" not sustainable? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-storage-cabinets-computer https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-st...
  - squidfunk 6y ago
    Is it greedy if, after investing months or years of work, answering issues, implementing feature requests, you feel like you deserve to be somehow compensated for your work, especially with successful companies using your software, benefiting from it? The model may be far from being perfect, I'm still learning and adjusting what works and what doesn't, but it feels much better investing my time into this project since I get something back.
    - alexvoda 6y ago
      It sure feels greedy if your inheritors expect to retain a monopoly over all rights over your work after your death for at least 70 years.
konschubert 6y ago
Hi, I am not sure if I fully understood your model: You said you will release the 1.5 K, 2K, ... features once you reach a monthly recurring sponsorship revenue of that amount of Dollars. What do you do if the sum of the monthly pledges goes down at some point? Will you make those features private again? I guess it's a bit counter-intuitive for me that a one-time release of a feature is tied to a recurring sponsorship level. On the other hand, that's basically the monthly-license-fee subscription model, so I guess it DOES make sense.
- vgaldikas 6y ago
  Į think certain percentage will just keep the donations on. And of course some will cancel them after the feature is released.
- joshspankit 6y ago
  There’s likely enough people continuing to support. As well: if needed there’s exercising the option to set the next feature at the next highest MRR goal.
- squidfunk 6y ago
  > What do you do if the sum of the monthly pledges goes down at some point? Will you make those features private again? Nope, any feature that is released will remain public. > I guess it's a bit counter-intuitive for me that a one-time release of a feature is tied to a recurring sponsorship level. In the end, I'm selling early access to new features, that's it. If you need something now, and it's available for sponsors only, you need to subscribe to get access to it. You can always implement it yourself, the project is very hackable and puts a great emphasis on extensibility. The documentation is very thorough, also in respect to customization. However, sometimes, maybe especially for something like technical documentation, you don't want to be fighting browser bugs and edge cases.
  - bhewes 6y ago
    This is pretty common on the Blender plugin side was well. IE Crowdrender.
0x008 6y ago
Replied to wrong comment
zvr 6y ago
Thanks for providing details. Are you the sole author? Do you accept contributions (PRs)? How are these handled?
- squidfunk 6y ago
  I do 99% of the work, but of course I also accept contributions. However, PRs are very rare and are mostly about bugfixes, not new features. Bugfixes are always released as part of the non-Insiders version, of course. What's probably interesting is to consider the user demographics, about which I learned more in a survey [1] I did last year. Only 8% of my user base would consider themselves Frontend engineers. Given that this is an HTML template with some rather complex CSS/JS, it's not surprising that there are only very few PRs that implement new features. I guess most Frontend engineers go for JavaScript-based solutions like Vuepress or Docusaurus. Material for MkDocs is Python-based. [1]: https://twitter.com/squidfunk/status/1259832077668810752 https://twitter.com/squidfunk/status/1259832077668810752
moondev 6y ago
I found your project yesterday and was blown away by not only the quality but how easy you made it to get going. It motivated me to sponsor you for the insider features and has exceeded all expectations! I never thought I would have so much fun creating documentation :) Cheers and keep up the great work!
- squidfunk 6y ago
  Thanks! That is great to hear. Making writing documentation as frictionless and easy as possible is the primary goal of this project. Happy to welcome you aboard as a sponsor!

SkyMarshal 6y ago

Thanks for the explanation. For clarification, does any subset of your community have access to the private version, like perhaps people paying a subscription fee or something? Or is that version completely hidden from everyone, and just used to develop and test new features until a funding threshold is met to release them into the public version?

squidfunk 6y ago
Sponsors have access to the private repository (I'm using GitHub's collaborator feature). I have several sponsor tiers and $10 a month or more will get you access to my sponsorware, which means you will be added to the private repository and can use the features immediately. What you're effectively getting is early access, so you can use the features before other users. The official documentation of my project lists exactly which features are "Insiders only", and which aren't. When the features tied to the funding goal that was hit are merged, everybody can use them. I try to always have sponsors-only features on higher tiers to keep sponsoring attractive. As I understand, Caleb does it with content and entire projects - I'm doing it with new features for an existing project. Also, I'm doing it fully transparent, disclosing how much I earn with this, which I think is crucial to build the necessary trust relationship.
- DelightOne 6y ago
  How do you avoid malicious users publishing your content public? Or is it just not an issue yet?
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    I suppose it's licensed under a non open source license until it's released to the public. If so, you can prosecute such individuals who break the license.
    - jraph 6y ago
      Remaining open source but banning the user who leaks the source code from the repository could work too, no? (the RedHat way). So as a user, you can start some work based on the insider version and be confident that you will be able to release your work even if the insider version never goes public for some reason, instead of relying on a promise that the code will be released in an open source license.
      - DelightOne 6y ago
        How to find out who leaked? Can you make github insert a kind of fingerprint?
    - squidfunk 6y ago
      It's MIT-licensed, as the original project. I have no interest in legal prosecution. Also, different licensing would make it more complicated for companies.
      - bonestamp2 6y ago
        > different licensing would make it more complicated for companies True, although just removing a couple of words from the MIT license would still be a very attractive and easy to use license. Examples of words you might remove: "sell" and "sublicense".

akkartik 6y ago

I really like this model and want it to take over the world. It would solve two problems: compensating people for building open-source software, and replacing the notion of IP for software with something more sustainable. More people should stand up and say, "I made this, I want to make the world better, and I will add this to the commons that everyone can benefit from after I extract $X of value from it." A social norm of requiring people to "call their shot" in advance feels like a powerful counter-force to greed.

jonas21 6y ago
Okay, I have to ask: How is the current "notion of IP for software" not sustainable? And how is this model, which seems like it's just asking to fall into a tragedy of the commons, more sustainable? And finally, how is making something and holding it back until getting paid a certain amount a "counter-force to greed"? (to be clear, I don't have a problem with this -- if someone makes something, they're free to do what they want with it -- but I don't see how it's any more or less greedy than other options)
- jdsalaro 6y ago
  > How is the current "notion of IP for software" not sustainable? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-storage-cabinets-computer https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-st...
- squidfunk 6y ago
  Is it greedy if, after investing months or years of work, answering issues, implementing feature requests, you feel like you deserve to be somehow compensated for your work, especially with successful companies using your software, benefiting from it? The model may be far from being perfect, I'm still learning and adjusting what works and what doesn't, but it feels much better investing my time into this project since I get something back.
  - alexvoda 6y ago
    It sure feels greedy if your inheritors expect to retain a monopoly over all rights over your work after your death for at least 70 years.

konschubert 6y ago

Hi, I am not sure if I fully understood your model: You said you will release the 1.5 K, 2K, ... features once you reach a monthly recurring sponsorship revenue of that amount of Dollars. What do you do if the sum of the monthly pledges goes down at some point? Will you make those features private again? I guess it's a bit counter-intuitive for me that a one-time release of a feature is tied to a recurring sponsorship level. On the other hand, that's basically the monthly-license-fee subscription model, so I guess it DOES make sense.

vgaldikas 6y ago
Į think certain percentage will just keep the donations on. And of course some will cancel them after the feature is released.
joshspankit 6y ago
There’s likely enough people continuing to support. As well: if needed there’s exercising the option to set the next feature at the next highest MRR goal.
squidfunk 6y ago
> What do you do if the sum of the monthly pledges goes down at some point? Will you make those features private again? Nope, any feature that is released will remain public. > I guess it's a bit counter-intuitive for me that a one-time release of a feature is tied to a recurring sponsorship level. In the end, I'm selling early access to new features, that's it. If you need something now, and it's available for sponsors only, you need to subscribe to get access to it. You can always implement it yourself, the project is very hackable and puts a great emphasis on extensibility. The documentation is very thorough, also in respect to customization. However, sometimes, maybe especially for something like technical documentation, you don't want to be fighting browser bugs and edge cases.
- bhewes 6y ago
  This is pretty common on the Blender plugin side was well. IE Crowdrender.

0x008 6y ago

Replied to wrong comment

zvr 6y ago

Thanks for providing details. Are you the sole author? Do you accept contributions (PRs)? How are these handled?

squidfunk 6y ago
I do 99% of the work, but of course I also accept contributions. However, PRs are very rare and are mostly about bugfixes, not new features. Bugfixes are always released as part of the non-Insiders version, of course. What's probably interesting is to consider the user demographics, about which I learned more in a survey [1] I did last year. Only 8% of my user base would consider themselves Frontend engineers. Given that this is an HTML template with some rather complex CSS/JS, it's not surprising that there are only very few PRs that implement new features. I guess most Frontend engineers go for JavaScript-based solutions like Vuepress or Docusaurus. Material for MkDocs is Python-based. [1]: https://twitter.com/squidfunk/status/1259832077668810752 https://twitter.com/squidfunk/status/1259832077668810752

moondev 6y ago

I found your project yesterday and was blown away by not only the quality but how easy you made it to get going. It motivated me to sponsor you for the insider features and has exceeded all expectations! I never thought I would have so much fun creating documentation :) Cheers and keep up the great work!

squidfunk 6y ago
Thanks! That is great to hear. Making writing documentation as frictionless and easy as possible is the primary goal of this project. Happy to welcome you aboard as a sponsor!