whit537

8 ms·

61.
by whit537 2y ago
We've started working on addressing this, fwiw: https://github.com/getsentry/team-ospo/issues/232
62.
by whit537 3y ago
<3
63.
by whit537 3y ago
Yes, MkDocs is an example of someone that's using a platform to good advantage. But the advantage they are using it for is to sell an excludable good: "new features are first exclusively released to sponsors."[1] Nothing wron
64.
by whit537 3y ago
> 'sponsorware' I consider this a case of "Open Source subsidization, not sustainability": https://openpath.chadwhitacre.com/2024/the-open-source-susta... Sustainability strongly defined means no
65.
by whit537 3y ago
> The solution to open-source sustainability is straightforward: people pay for what they genuinely need. Commercial open-source excels in this aspect! I define this in the post as "Open Source subsidization, not sustainability.&quo
66.
by whit537 3y ago
https://github.com/getsentry/team-ospo/issues/211 ftr
67.
by whit537 3y ago
<3
68.
by whit537 3y ago
Mostly a design choice on Thanks.dev and GitHub Sponsors parts. I would be fine to give it all at once, especially since conceptually for me it's payment for the past year.
69.
by whit537 3y ago
Good feedback, thanks, I'll share with the Thanks.dev crew.
70.
by whit537 3y ago
Sorry ak217. :( It's $15 per month so $180 allocated overall. Would it be more worth it for you if it were paid out in one lump sum for the year vs. doled out monthly?
71.
by whit537 3y ago
It is curious that users would downvote/flag our post yesterday but not Colin's post today, which begins, "Yesterday I read a great article from Sentry". I agree it's kinda shouting into the wind to complain. Oh wel
72.
by whit537 3y ago
They definitely modded us last year (I emailed) and the hnrankings chart shows two definite drops this year. :shrug:
73.
by whit537 3y ago
Not a public company but Bloomberg's FOSS giving falls under their overall corporate philanthropy program, for example. They're involved in FOSSFunders.com behind the scenes but lots of bureaucracy to actually adding their logo.
74.
by whit537 3y ago
A couple other refs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1890574 https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/11/15/120320/should-co... I don't find the original in archive.org or archive
75.
by whit537 3y ago
> FOSS Tithe TIL, thanks! Found this: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2227761/a-tithe-for-ope... . Looks like the original blog post is gone. Wonder if Gabe wants to revisit. :thinking:
76.
by whit537 3y ago
Heart-warming! :D
77.
by whit537 3y ago
Fair enough. We could do better at telling the larger story. Thanks for the nudge! Cheers! :^)
78.
by whit537 3y ago
Cross-posted at https://github.com/getsentry/loose-confederation/issues/4#is... . ;-) One of our goals is to keep the parameters to an absolute minimum, to aid in adoption. The simpler we can keep it the more
79.
by whit537 3y ago
> Surely companies should want an active relationship with the developers of their most important and fundamental projects as well. This sets up a false dichotomy. We _do_ have active relationships with the developers of our most importa
80.
by whit537 3y ago
Seeing one other company on github.com/sponsors/nfriedly, glad we could triple your sponsors. :D P.S. There might be more on Thanks.dev. Cheers! [I'm the post author.]
81.
by whit537 3y ago
> How much should they have paid? Curious in this. 15k is on par with what we give to foundations such as Python, Django, Rust and OpenJS. Is that the right anchor? Another angle: Which deps should we take money away from to give more to
82.
by whit537 3y ago
We survey our employees for projects to include, and we do pick up some that way that we don't use in prod.
83.
by whit537 3y ago
The 95% is out of all _fundable_ dependencies. I'll update the blog post to make that clearer. Not sure about authors of lines of code, sounds like way more detail than GitHub is ever likely to provide. :-/
84.
by whit537 3y ago
FYI we have a follow-up at https://blog.sentry.io/lets-talk-about-open-source/ . > Yesterday we announced that Codecov is now “Open Source”, and we messed up in two ways: > - We wrongly used the term Open Source;
85.
by whit537 3y ago
FYI we have a follow-up at https://blog.sentry.io/lets-talk-about-open-source/ . > Yesterday we announced that Codecov is now “Open Source”, and we messed up in two ways: > - We wrongly used the term Open Source;
86.
by whit537 3y ago
(Addressed elsewhere in the comments, this is obviously a mistake.)
87.
by whit537 3y ago
This mistake only occurs in the self-hosted repo, which contains very little code. All of the "real" code is in the other four repos, each of which have their own LICENSE file that did not have this mistake.
88.
by whit537 3y ago
Good catch, thanks! Fixing in https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/pull/6 .
89.
by whit537 3y ago
Feels like a spirit vs. letter conflict. When we say "Codecov is now Open Source" we sincerely mean it at face value. We think we're embodying the spirit of open source. If the letter doesn't jibe then let's change
90.
by whit537 3y ago
Why do you say unilaterally? MariaDB wrote the BSL, not us. Sentry is far from the only company with the problem of wanting to open-source its core products without exposing itself to the risk of other companies cannibalizing our business m

More ›