3 ms·
> If GitHub actually helped developers make money this would be a different story. Sponsorships are a tipjar, it's not a sustainable path, it's not a form of em
by jwr 4y ago
> If GitHub actually helped developers make money this would be a different story. Sponsorships are a tipjar, it's not a sustainable path, it's not a form of employment.
I really don't understand. GitHub does help developers make money. Sponsorships are subscriptions, not one-time tips. If you can get 20 companies to pitch in with, say, $250/month, you begin to look at a sustainable living. From a company point of view, paying, say, $1000/month for four most-used pieces of software that the company depends on, is still many times less expensive than hiring even a single full-time developer.
I feel like rather than trying to change the mindset ("everything must be FREE FREE FREE"), we are trying very hard to find reasons not to use a perfectly good existing solution.
- asim 4y agoIt's the issue with the concept of sponsorship. It's still associated with optional donation rather than payment for a service or tool you need. That mindset shift is huge. Until someone does it we'll continue in the way we're going.
- tlocke 4y agoWith GitHub, sponsorships are either one-off payments or regular subscriptions. FWIW I've only ever been paid once through GitHub sponsors and that was a one-off payment. This payment ($500) was actually from GitHub itself because they use the software I work on.