23 ms·

It seems that donation based model is not sustainable for OSS. Even the latest report of Open Collective (https://blog.opencollective.com/12m-for-open-source/ h

It seems that donation based model is not sustainable for OSS. Even the latest report of Open Collective (https://blog.opencollective.com/12m-for-open-source/ https://blog.opencollective.com/12m-for-open-source/) suggests that an OSS projects are receiving just ~4k USD per project in a year on an average. This is below the min-wage of many countires if you look at it at a contributor level. Isn't there any alternative possible? This seems like a huge opportunity if solved correctly.

keikobadthebad 4y ago
It won't get solved while there are no real downsides to the companies leeching it to ignore it.
- ankitmundada 4y ago
  Yes, companies probably need to be donating more, but I also think individual donors can also do their bit.
wmf 4y ago
There are several alternatives to donations although some of them are derided as "fake open source".
- cercatrova 4y ago
  That is because they are fake open source. It's not derision, it's a fact that they switch from OSS to proprietary software. Nothing wrong with that, I also use Windows and macOS, but let's call a spade a spade and not "open source."
- ankitmundada 4y ago
  Like what?
- Arnt 4y ago
  Some of those derisive people are terribly draining. Enough to be a factor in in abandoning an open source project and getting a job at Accenture instead. I might go to fosdem this winter. If I do, it'll be the first such event in almost 20 years: https://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/openssl-hate https://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/openssl-hate
feoren 4y ago
There are two alternatives possible. One is that we collectively decide to stop shaming software developers for having the audacity to want some level of ownership over the product of their work. We don't shame authors for wanting copyright on their books; we don't shame musicians, artists, designers, or aerospace engineers for asking for some copyright protection for their creative babies. Yet when a software developer does it: fuck that guy! He's trying to take control of what's running on your computer (or the internet server that you're sending requests to ...). Nobody throws a hissy fit when J.K. Rowling has (gasp!) copyright over the Harry Potter books that are sitting on your Kindle. It's your Kindle! Shouldn't you have the right to copy off the words in the books and re-sell it to other people for much less money, undercutting Rowling? How dare she try to get some legal protection that says you can't do that! It's fucking ridiculous when we talk about authors that way, but somehow it's OK to talk about software developers that way. Do you think "open source authors" would make a living from their books? It's already difficult enough for new authors to get any notice; how much worse would it be if prominent authors (who were already rich) came out and founded the "Free Books Foundation" that comes out and says every young author who's trying to sell her books for money is being a greedy asshole and we should fight against them and every author needs to spend a significant portion of their free time contributing to "open books" or they're assholes? Of-fucking-course it's not sustainable. That's because it's always been OK to want copyright on your creative work. I'll be the first to say patents are a huge problem right now and we might be better off without any patent law, but copyright is not the same. Yes, the terms are way too long, and the family of Marvin Gaye proves that "copyright trolls" are possible, but the fundamental concept of copyright is actually critical if we want creative people to ever get a paycheck. The other alternative is Universal Basic Income, so that making "below the minimum wage" doesn't mean "fuck you, you get to die sick and homeless in a tent on the side of the highway". Then people could actually just contribute to OSS because they want to.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Any developer regardless of open sourcing their work or not automatically gets copyright for whatever they write. That is in fact how they're even able to assign a license in the first place. I also think you're misunderstanding the FSF. Nowhere do they say that selling software is bad, in fact they explicitly say that you can sell your open source software, and also note that it's free as in freedom, not beer. The real argument is that open source is not a business model. Just because someone writes OSS does not mean they will automatically make money, because again, it's a distribution model, not a business model. There are plenty of OSS that make money because they focus on the business and marketing side instead of only the developer side. That most devs don't want to do that and prefer to write code does not justify their crying when no one pays for their free product.

keikobadthebad 4y ago

It won't get solved while there are no real downsides to the companies leeching it to ignore it.

ankitmundada 4y ago
Yes, companies probably need to be donating more, but I also think individual donors can also do their bit.

wmf 4y ago

There are several alternatives to donations although some of them are derided as "fake open source".

cercatrova 4y ago
That is because they are fake open source. It's not derision, it's a fact that they switch from OSS to proprietary software. Nothing wrong with that, I also use Windows and macOS, but let's call a spade a spade and not "open source."
ankitmundada 4y ago
Like what?
Arnt 4y ago
Some of those derisive people are terribly draining. Enough to be a factor in in abandoning an open source project and getting a job at Accenture instead. I might go to fosdem this winter. If I do, it'll be the first such event in almost 20 years: https://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/openssl-hate https://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/openssl-hate

feoren 4y ago

There are two alternatives possible. One is that we collectively decide to stop shaming software developers for having the audacity to want some level of ownership over the product of their work. We don't shame authors for wanting copyright on their books; we don't shame musicians, artists, designers, or aerospace engineers for asking for some copyright protection for their creative babies. Yet when a software developer does it: fuck that guy! He's trying to take control of what's running on your computer (or the internet server that you're sending requests to ...). Nobody throws a hissy fit when J.K. Rowling has (gasp!) copyright over the Harry Potter books that are sitting on your Kindle. It's your Kindle! Shouldn't you have the right to copy off the words in the books and re-sell it to other people for much less money, undercutting Rowling? How dare she try to get some legal protection that says you can't do that! It's fucking ridiculous when we talk about authors that way, but somehow it's OK to talk about software developers that way. Do you think "open source authors" would make a living from their books? It's already difficult enough for new authors to get any notice; how much worse would it be if prominent authors (who were already rich) came out and founded the "Free Books Foundation" that comes out and says every young author who's trying to sell her books for money is being a greedy asshole and we should fight against them and every author needs to spend a significant portion of their free time contributing to "open books" or they're assholes? Of-fucking-course it's not sustainable. That's because it's always been OK to want copyright on your creative work. I'll be the first to say patents are a huge problem right now and we might be better off without any patent law, but copyright is not the same. Yes, the terms are way too long, and the family of Marvin Gaye proves that "copyright trolls" are possible, but the fundamental concept of copyright is actually critical if we want creative people to ever get a paycheck. The other alternative is Universal Basic Income, so that making "below the minimum wage" doesn't mean "fuck you, you get to die sick and homeless in a tent on the side of the highway". Then people could actually just contribute to OSS because they want to.

cercatrova 4y ago
Any developer regardless of open sourcing their work or not automatically gets copyright for whatever they write. That is in fact how they're even able to assign a license in the first place. I also think you're misunderstanding the FSF. Nowhere do they say that selling software is bad, in fact they explicitly say that you can sell your open source software, and also note that it's free as in freedom, not beer. The real argument is that open source is not a business model. Just because someone writes OSS does not mean they will automatically make money, because again, it's a distribution model, not a business model. There are plenty of OSS that make money because they focus on the business and marketing side instead of only the developer side. That most devs don't want to do that and prefer to write code does not justify their crying when no one pays for their free product.