8 ms·

There are many free software projects that are decently or well funded. They have no problem meeting their donation requests, and having a good budget year over

There are many free software projects that are decently or well funded. They have no problem meeting their donation requests, and having a good budget year over year. These projects are usually end user facing, in a way that their dependencies aren't. It seems reasonable that these projects should consider adding items to their budget to redistribute funds to projects that they depend on. Some probably do this, however I think the GP was suggesting that something like this become more common.

davidw 12y ago
> There are many free software projects that are decently or well funded. Which ones are those?
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSSH, Firefox, Apache, etc. In addition, some projects that are not well-funded as a project are "funded" in the sense that companies pay people to work on them, for example Microsoft paying Simon Peyton Jones to work on GHC.
  - davidw 12y ago
    It's a complex topic, so I think it's best to look at different funding models differently. Ubuntu is funded by Canonical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth in other words. So one big donor. Debian... seems to mostly get by on volunteer labor and be ok with it, or it did when I was involved with them. Has that changed? I suspect that in some ways Debian is underfunded given the amount of work they do. Perhaps money would make some things happen faster there. The Apache Software Foundation does a decent job at fundraising, and even employs a few people to do stuff like administration. Most of the projects get by with companies that pay people to work on them, which seems to work out pretty well. Firefox/Mozilla make most of their money with deals: Google and Yahoo, last I remember. I don't know about OpenSSH. It's possible, but mostly donations don't seem to work unless it's big chunks of money from companies.
    - ryanlol 12y ago
      AFAIK Ubuntu is profitable for Canonical, so I wouldn't call that a donation.
      - davidw 12y ago
        I've never heard one way or the other whether it is or not; I'd be curious to see some data.
      - Alupis 12y ago
        > AFAIK Ubuntu is profitable for Canonical, so I wouldn't call that a donation. Unfortunately, that is very far from true. Ubuntu was negative $21 million USD in 2013[1]. Canonical would literally make money by just not doing Ubuntu anymore.[2] (Every time Canonical is on the verge of bankruptcy, Shuttleworth re-seeds back into the company from his personal checkbook) [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/199373896/Canonical-Group-Limited-Annual-Accounts-2013 http://www.scribd.com/doc/199373896/Canonical-Group-Limited-... (the numbers are represented in thousands, so 21,343 is 21,343,000) [2] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/13/mark-shuttleworth-canonical-ubuntu http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/13/mark-shuttlew... The significant losses due to Ubuntu development and related expenses are why Canonical as-of-late has been turning focus away from Ubuntu towards other markets such as Mobile and especially Enterprise (a la Red Hat's turf).
        Maken 12y ago
        Ubuntu itself is a central part of their cloud business, so Ubuntu is indeed profitable for them. What's not profitable is their desktop and end users' market.
        Alupis 12y ago
        That's not quite how it gets expensed (nor how it works). Canonical's cloud business might be profitable (even though Canonical as a whole is very-mush-so-not), however their cloud business is not coupled to Ubuntu, ie. they could use any Linux Distro, or any OS for the matter. Ubuntu is a total loss center for Canonical. It's surprising to a lot of people given it's popularity... but popularity doesn't equal profitability... especially when most users don't pay anything for the software (not even support fees).
  - morb 12y ago
    Firefox is kinda special because they get a lot money from whoever pays them to be the default search engine, doesn't matter if it's Google or Microsoft or Yahoo. There's only so much software that can get away with that, GPG certainly can't. All of the Debian developers are volunteers, am I wrong? Slackware can barely support one employee, the founder. OpenSSH falls under OpenBSD, which also supports just the founder, everyone else volunteers, and they DO volunteer some serious time and do important things. They also had problems raising funds, there were discussions on HN about that here, and I'm sure there will be more in a year or two. From: http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2014.html http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2014.html : * If $10 were given for every installation of OpenBSD in the last year from the master site (ignoring the mirrors) we would be at our goal. * If $2 were given for every download of the OpenSSH source code in the last year from the master site (ignoring the mirrors) we would be at our goal. * If a penny was donated for every pf or OpenSSH installed with a mainstream operating system or phone in the last year we would be at our goal. This is kinda depressing. Is there someone from the Debian project here? I'm wondering if they could afford to run their own mirrors around the world if they had to. Could they cover hardware, colo and bandwidth costs, if they had to? I'm just curious.
    - bigiain 12y ago
      Perhaps GPG should annually auction off which nation-state security service or online advertising company's public key gets automatically added to the recipients list for each encrypted message? </cynical>
    - mattlutze 12y ago
      > There's only so much software that can get away with that, GPG certainly can't. That's the point -- the ones that can should support the ones that can't, which are often foundational components of the reason the ones that can, can get money in the first place.
Alupis 12y ago
> There are many free software projects that are decently or well funded. They have no problem meeting their donation requests, and having a good budget year over year. Too bad OpenSSL wasn't one of them until after the big "heartbleed" incident. The core infrastructure projects don't seem to get as much funding as they ought to, especially given almost everyone relies on them (even if they don't realize it). Prior to Heartbleed and the industry rallying to fund critical projects, OpenSSL only received an average of $2,000 USD a year[1]... that's pathetic. [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/tech-giants-chastened-by-heartbleed-finally-agree-to-fund-openssl/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/tech-g...
- notsony 12y ago
  Over the next three years, the Linux Foundation will receive a combined total of $3.9 million from Google, Intel, Amazon and others to fund core infrastructure projects such as OpenSSL. Sounds good until you take a step back... > Intel will invest "$300 million to help improve the pipeline for women and minorities, actively support the hiring and retention of diverse candidates, and fund programs that support the positive representation of women and minorities in technology and gaming industries." http://www.wired.com/2015/01/intel-diversity/ http://www.wired.com/2015/01/intel-diversity/ > "Google Gives $775,000 to Nonprofit for Tech Diversity CODE2040 said Monday it received $775,000 in grants from the tech giant to support the launch of free training programs for more than 5,000 black and Latino college engineering students over the next two years." http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/02/02/google-gives-775000-to-nonprofit-for-tech-diversity/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/02/02/google-gives-775000-t...
  - jchrisa 12y ago
    I bet they also spent crazy money on non-diversity related things like employee perks or lobbying.
  - 72deluxe 12y ago
    It's interesting with the Outreach programme in GNOME (I think that's what it's called), because if you periodically look at planet.gnome.org, there are interesting things going on with developers within that outreach programme. But there are also justified backlashes to the programme, given that there is a perceived priority given to the programme in some areas instead of writing software. The argument is that not everyone and their dog needs to be involved with writing software, so why should we encourage them to? You don't see such pushes in dentistry, the car industry or anything like that; "Are you a WOMAN? Then join the car industry!". Strangely we do in IT though, where it is the belief that we should make EVERYONE code! The "I will fight you and I will win" response from Emmanuelle Bassi is a particularly horrible/strange/passionate reaction from one of the guys involved with the programme: see http://blogs.gnome.org/tvb/2014/09/12/im-looking-at-you/comment-page-1/ http://blogs.gnome.org/tvb/2014/09/12/im-looking-at-you/comm...
fijal 12y ago
Name a few. I know very very few and the funding goals are very very modest most of the time (they don't really convey the idea of full time devs)

davidw 12y ago

> There are many free software projects that are decently or well funded. Which ones are those?

copsarebastards 12y ago
Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSSH, Firefox, Apache, etc. In addition, some projects that are not well-funded as a project are "funded" in the sense that companies pay people to work on them, for example Microsoft paying Simon Peyton Jones to work on GHC.
- davidw 12y ago
  It's a complex topic, so I think it's best to look at different funding models differently. Ubuntu is funded by Canonical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth in other words. So one big donor. Debian... seems to mostly get by on volunteer labor and be ok with it, or it did when I was involved with them. Has that changed? I suspect that in some ways Debian is underfunded given the amount of work they do. Perhaps money would make some things happen faster there. The Apache Software Foundation does a decent job at fundraising, and even employs a few people to do stuff like administration. Most of the projects get by with companies that pay people to work on them, which seems to work out pretty well. Firefox/Mozilla make most of their money with deals: Google and Yahoo, last I remember. I don't know about OpenSSH. It's possible, but mostly donations don't seem to work unless it's big chunks of money from companies.
  - ryanlol 12y ago
    AFAIK Ubuntu is profitable for Canonical, so I wouldn't call that a donation.
    - davidw 12y ago
      I've never heard one way or the other whether it is or not; I'd be curious to see some data.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      > AFAIK Ubuntu is profitable for Canonical, so I wouldn't call that a donation. Unfortunately, that is very far from true. Ubuntu was negative $21 million USD in 2013[1]. Canonical would literally make money by just not doing Ubuntu anymore.[2] (Every time Canonical is on the verge of bankruptcy, Shuttleworth re-seeds back into the company from his personal checkbook) [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/199373896/Canonical-Group-Limited-Annual-Accounts-2013 http://www.scribd.com/doc/199373896/Canonical-Group-Limited-... (the numbers are represented in thousands, so 21,343 is 21,343,000) [2] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/13/mark-shuttleworth-canonical-ubuntu http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/13/mark-shuttlew... The significant losses due to Ubuntu development and related expenses are why Canonical as-of-late has been turning focus away from Ubuntu towards other markets such as Mobile and especially Enterprise (a la Red Hat's turf).
      - Maken 12y ago
        Ubuntu itself is a central part of their cloud business, so Ubuntu is indeed profitable for them. What's not profitable is their desktop and end users' market.
        Alupis 12y ago
        That's not quite how it gets expensed (nor how it works). Canonical's cloud business might be profitable (even though Canonical as a whole is very-mush-so-not), however their cloud business is not coupled to Ubuntu, ie. they could use any Linux Distro, or any OS for the matter. Ubuntu is a total loss center for Canonical. It's surprising to a lot of people given it's popularity... but popularity doesn't equal profitability... especially when most users don't pay anything for the software (not even support fees).
- morb 12y ago
  Firefox is kinda special because they get a lot money from whoever pays them to be the default search engine, doesn't matter if it's Google or Microsoft or Yahoo. There's only so much software that can get away with that, GPG certainly can't. All of the Debian developers are volunteers, am I wrong? Slackware can barely support one employee, the founder. OpenSSH falls under OpenBSD, which also supports just the founder, everyone else volunteers, and they DO volunteer some serious time and do important things. They also had problems raising funds, there were discussions on HN about that here, and I'm sure there will be more in a year or two. From: http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2014.html http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2014.html : * If $10 were given for every installation of OpenBSD in the last year from the master site (ignoring the mirrors) we would be at our goal. * If $2 were given for every download of the OpenSSH source code in the last year from the master site (ignoring the mirrors) we would be at our goal. * If a penny was donated for every pf or OpenSSH installed with a mainstream operating system or phone in the last year we would be at our goal. This is kinda depressing. Is there someone from the Debian project here? I'm wondering if they could afford to run their own mirrors around the world if they had to. Could they cover hardware, colo and bandwidth costs, if they had to? I'm just curious.
  - bigiain 12y ago
    Perhaps GPG should annually auction off which nation-state security service or online advertising company's public key gets automatically added to the recipients list for each encrypted message? </cynical>
  - mattlutze 12y ago
    > There's only so much software that can get away with that, GPG certainly can't. That's the point -- the ones that can should support the ones that can't, which are often foundational components of the reason the ones that can, can get money in the first place.

Alupis 12y ago

> There are many free software projects that are decently or well funded. They have no problem meeting their donation requests, and having a good budget year over year. Too bad OpenSSL wasn't one of them until after the big "heartbleed" incident. The core infrastructure projects don't seem to get as much funding as they ought to, especially given almost everyone relies on them (even if they don't realize it). Prior to Heartbleed and the industry rallying to fund critical projects, OpenSSL only received an average of $2,000 USD a year[1]... that's pathetic. [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/tech-giants-chastened-by-heartbleed-finally-agree-to-fund-openssl/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/tech-g...

notsony 12y ago
Over the next three years, the Linux Foundation will receive a combined total of $3.9 million from Google, Intel, Amazon and others to fund core infrastructure projects such as OpenSSL. Sounds good until you take a step back... > Intel will invest "$300 million to help improve the pipeline for women and minorities, actively support the hiring and retention of diverse candidates, and fund programs that support the positive representation of women and minorities in technology and gaming industries." http://www.wired.com/2015/01/intel-diversity/ http://www.wired.com/2015/01/intel-diversity/ > "Google Gives $775,000 to Nonprofit for Tech Diversity CODE2040 said Monday it received $775,000 in grants from the tech giant to support the launch of free training programs for more than 5,000 black and Latino college engineering students over the next two years." http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/02/02/google-gives-775000-to-nonprofit-for-tech-diversity/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/02/02/google-gives-775000-t...
- jchrisa 12y ago
  I bet they also spent crazy money on non-diversity related things like employee perks or lobbying.
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  It's interesting with the Outreach programme in GNOME (I think that's what it's called), because if you periodically look at planet.gnome.org, there are interesting things going on with developers within that outreach programme. But there are also justified backlashes to the programme, given that there is a perceived priority given to the programme in some areas instead of writing software. The argument is that not everyone and their dog needs to be involved with writing software, so why should we encourage them to? You don't see such pushes in dentistry, the car industry or anything like that; "Are you a WOMAN? Then join the car industry!". Strangely we do in IT though, where it is the belief that we should make EVERYONE code! The "I will fight you and I will win" response from Emmanuelle Bassi is a particularly horrible/strange/passionate reaction from one of the guys involved with the programme: see http://blogs.gnome.org/tvb/2014/09/12/im-looking-at-you/comment-page-1/ http://blogs.gnome.org/tvb/2014/09/12/im-looking-at-you/comm...

fijal 12y ago

Name a few. I know very very few and the funding goals are very very modest most of the time (they don't really convey the idea of full time devs)