[HN Gopher] A handy guide to financial support for open source
___________________________________________________________________
A handy guide to financial support for open source
Author : SenHeng
Score : 128 points
Date : 2022-08-29 09:12 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| svnpenn wrote:
| I recently switched a couple of my projects to non-commercial:
|
| https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0
|
| I would recommend it to anyone, but it does have some drawbacks.
| Notably, GitHub and the Go programming language refuse to support
| it:
|
| https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/1015
|
| https://github.com/golang/go/issues/54683
| ttcbj wrote:
| Wow, very useful. Thanks for sharing this.
| rapnie wrote:
| See also prior HN discussion:
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15784448 (2017, 51
| comments)
|
| And this featured a couple more times, and some other related
| links too:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=github.com/nayafia
| ohiovr wrote:
| I have a project I'd like to make available to all as open source
| if I had some kind of contributor backing. I've had an inquiry
| about it already. So I think the project could have value to
| people looking to explore sounds of instruments in the orchestra
| especially since it can be easier to get satisfying results with
| the system I am working on compared to expensive and clumsy
| systems already available.
|
| The problem I have is that just putting the code out there hoping
| that there would be interest is a bit like putting baby in an
| orphanage hoping someone will adopt the project when I would have
| to move on from it anyway due to no money coming in from other
| sources.
|
| I love free software and my entire software world IS free
| software now with pretty much no exceptions. I'd like to
| contribute back to a community that has given me access to some
| of the best software I've used to date.
|
| But I'm poor, hard to employ, and have skills or strengths that
| are in an unusual combination.
|
| I like Ton Roosendaal's approach with Blender. I've been
| following his story since the late 1990s when I was using
| Lightwave 3D. I bought his book and tried to use his software but
| could not figure out what to do with it at the time. I think the
| book was unprofitable for him as it was expensive to make. But I
| observed his software get more and more powerful to where I am
| finding it easy to use Blender today. I don't know if Ton has
| financial difficulties I sure hope not but it seems he has some
| kind of support.
|
| I'm not as talented as Ton. He could program great software
| without the niceties of Stack Overflow and all the learning help
| I have now.
|
| But because of the talents of so many people I can make
| reasonably good quality products from my software and have ideas
| to make it a lot better than it is now.
|
| I could do this over and over if I had backing.
|
| How did curl and wget make it? And so many other tools that are
| simply taken for granted.
|
| I really want to have creative control of the development of my
| software and I really don't want to see Adobe or Amazon to snatch
| it up, package it, and sell it as a service under my nose making
| tons of money where I am hoping to find enough work to pay my
| electric bill and subsidized rent.
|
| The framework I'm building could be adapted to so many different
| ways of making melody, harmony, and rhythm. There are thousands
| of files from great composers that don't get much play time which
| can sound very interesting in instrumentation that they weren't
| written for. The software can be a great way to explore
| composition style and get ideas.
|
| Although it can offer sonic realism I don't want the software to
| replace human performance. I really want it to be a starting
| point for developing new compositions worthy of being performed.
| pomber wrote:
| My approach with Code Hike (https://codehike.org/) was to add a
| sponsor-wall to some parts of the docs, not sure if it falls
| under any of those categories. It's working decently well ($600
| per month).
| capableweb wrote:
| > https://codehike.org/demo/scrollycoding-preview
|
| > The code of this demo is hidden until it reaches five
| sponsors.
|
| > Become a sponsor for $9 a month to have full acces to all
| demos:
|
| Maybe I misunderstand, but I could either pay $9/month and
| would be able to access it directly, or I wait until you get 5
| more sponsors (for that specific page) and then I'll be able to
| access the content for free, like everyone else?
|
| So if I end up sponsoring the page to view it, I could end up
| being the fifth sponsor, unlocking the page for everyone and
| ultimately spent the money for content that now everyone can
| view too?
| svnpenn wrote:
| yeah, whats wrong with that?
| lupire wrote:
| Probably would get much better results if it said "$50
| bounty for this demo" or whatever, and collected pledges of
| any amount, instead of hoping for exactly 5 whales to show
| up.
|
| And making a subscription makes the value prop even more
| confusing.
|
| Seems like an own-goal.
| pomber wrote:
| that's right
| wodenokoto wrote:
| That's quite an interesting approach. And congratulations on
| getting Meta to sponsor your project. Even if they are only
| giving you $9/month it must still feel like quite the
| validation.
| pomber wrote:
| Thanks. Meta made a generous one-time donation via Open
| Collective https://opencollective.com/codehike
| ohiovr wrote:
| Good software needs no docs.
| qwerki wrote:
| This list is maintained by Nadia Eghbal of "Working in public"
| fame. Great summary of the different mechanisms.
|
| I'm working on something in this space. Would love some feedback.
| Putting final touches to it at https://thanks.dev. The concept is
| "my donation should distribute across my dependency tree".
| pabs3 wrote:
| There are a lot of competitors in this space, everything from
| for-profits like Open Collective to non-profits like snowdrift
| (which isn't live yet).
|
| https://opencollective.com/ https://snowdrift.coop/
| bombcar wrote:
| You ate my back button on iPhone and I couldn't return.
| qwerki wrote:
| Apologies for that. I've disabled the default redirect to
| /home for now so that shouldn't happen anymore. Will figure
| out the correct solution asap. Thanks for letting me know!
| lupire wrote:
| window.location.replace
|
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43838496/redirect-
| with-j...
| teddyh wrote:
| Could use links to the following:
|
| * https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.en
|
| * https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
| mholt wrote:
| I want to submit a PR to remove Caddy from the "open core"
| category... or at least add it to several other categories which
| helped make it possible for me to work on Caddy full-time. Open
| Core did not work for us (hence the link to the retrospective).
|
| At first it was a donation button, then an award from Mozilla
| (MOSS) -- kind of like a grant but they emphasized it was not
| technically a grant, probably for legal reasons -- that gave my
| college student self 6 months of runway while I finished school.
| Then I continued worked on Caddy while in graduate school, until
| I got hired by Ardan Labs to design and launch Caddy 2. That
| ended just before the launch of Caddy 2, when ZeroSSL acquired
| the project and to this day I rely on sponsorships from ZeroSSL,
| Stripe, and several other sponsors to work on Caddy full time.
|
| "Sponsorware" doesn't really apply to us, but there are
| definitely features and fixes that have been possible because
| sponsors funded the work.
|
| We offer some paid support too, but that's pretty time-intensive
| and doesn't pay the recurring bills, just one-off contracts.
|
| I've rejected venture capital because it's not the right path for
| me or the project IMO.
|
| Anyway, I wrote about my recommendations for funding open source
| projects here: https://matt.life/writing/the-asymmetry-of-open-
| source
| lupire wrote:
| How do you feel working full time on a tool, and not using the
| tool (which presumably is why the tool is valuable)? It's not
| just a paycheck, obviously. You could earn more working on
| something else. Did you just get "hooked" on an originally you
| project?
| mholt wrote:
| Good questions.
|
| I use Caddy often. Even some of the features coming out next
| month are based on my own needs. So that's a plus: it's not a
| project that's irrelevant to me.
|
| True, I could earn more at a large or VC-backed tech company.
| But the flexibility of working on something of which I'm the
| world expert is quite satisfying and is paying the bills for
| now, so I'll probably ride this wave as long as I can or want
| to.
|
| Building something from the ground-up and exerting so much
| effort to make it the best in its class has been
| invigorating, so you could say I got "hooked" on it. (But I
| do reject the notion that it's "my baby" as some people refer
| to it. It has over 300 contributors by now and I'm not sure
| I'm even the top code committer at this point.)
| svnpenn wrote:
| > I'm not sure I'm even the top code committer at this
| point
|
| you are, by a lot:
|
| https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/graphs/contributors
| mholt wrote:
| Over all time, yes, but look at the last ~year: https://g
| ithub.com/caddyserver/caddy/graphs/contributors?fro...
| Grimburger wrote:
| > Restricted licenses (reminiscent of the older shareware
| movement) are not open source
|
| I can look at the code. Seems open enough to me [ducks from
| tomatoes].
|
| People play the semantics game on this a lot but the source is
| viewable/available/stealable by anyone who wants it. Hackers can
| find bugs to either exploit or notify the maintainers of and
| people can modify it to better suit their needs. Legitimate
| businesses will buy a license if it is of worth to them, I doubt
| you'll find many that are overpriced for their value.
|
| The fervent animosity towards dual free non-commercial/paid
| commercial licenses in the foss world has always puzzled me. In
| the end it is source code readable by anyone yeah? What would you
| actually prefer, it stays locked up forever?
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| _The fervent animosity towards dual free non-commercial /paid
| commercial licenses in the foss world has always puzzled me. In
| the end it is source code readable by anyone yeah? What would
| you actually prefer, it stays locked up forever?_
|
| The animosity comes from being tricked into vendor lock-in with
| "free" samples.
|
| I would much rather have a paid free license than a zero cost
| non-free license. I'm always surprised more
| corporate/enterprise software doesn't take this approach. Have
| it be a full open source license, but only distribute the
| source to companies that pay for support contracts. Of course
| your paying customers could turn around and redistribute it,
| but most companies are risk adverse and would rather buy from
| the vendor. If you really can't handle some people using your
| new code for free you could have it be proprietary for a year
| or three then revert to AGPL or whatever FLOSS license you
| prefer. (which was mentioned in tfa)
| Grimburger wrote:
| > The animosity comes from being tricked into vendor lock-in
| with "free" samples.
|
| Care to name one of these lock-in licenses specifically
| rather than generally?
|
| > I would much rather have a paid free license than a zero
| cost non-free license.
|
| As someone who earns money from opensource software used by
| both companies and individuals I really have no idea what
| this actually means. Care to elucidate for the rest of us
| what a "paid free" or " zero cost non-free" license is?
| Literally just an example link to one of those types of
| licenses is all I'm asking here.
| pabs3 wrote:
| Paid free would be where you pay for an app and get the
| GPLed source code along with the binary.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| _> The animosity comes from being tricked into vendor lock-
| in with "free" samples.
|
| Care to name one of these lock-in licenses specifically
| rather than generally?_
|
| It's not the licenses, it's the tactics they allow.
| Microsoft giving away Office to schools for so long is why
| so many companies use it today. They are afraid of teaching
| their employees something new, so they don't even consider
| it. Because everyone realizes this, there is little
| competition.
|
| _As someone who earns money from opensource software used
| by both companies and individuals I really have no idea
| what this actually means. Care to elucidate for the rest of
| us what a "paid free" or " zero cost non-free" license is?
| Literally just an example link to one of those types of
| licenses is all I'm asking here._
|
| I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess not. When I said
| "zero cost non-free" I meant any software that doesn't cost
| money, but does not give users freedom. An example would be
| Microsoft Edge. When I said "paid free" I meant software
| that costs money, but does give users freedom. An example
| would be RHEL, it was still free/opensource code but they
| only let paying customers download it from their servers.
| I'm not sure if redhat still works this way after the
| changes they've gone through since IBM, but that was their
| thing for a long time.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _it is source code readable by anyone yeah? What would you
| actually prefer, it stays locked up forever?_
|
| False dichotomy.
| EarlKing wrote:
| What they would prefer is that you continue to offer up your
| unpaid labor that they can then use to build fortunes upon. It
| is no accident that businesses are happy to encourage "open
| source" so long as that means "make us stuff we can use to make
| money with without paying you a dime". "Open source" has never
| meant you couldn't charge for your work or otherwise impose a
| noncommercial use restriction on it, though the OSI and its
| pro-corporate partisans have gone to great lengths to claim
| otherwise (much like they like to pretend the invented the term
| and/or the concept).
|
| At the end of the day I don't work for free, and I'm pretty
| sure you don't either, so if you want to get paid for what you
| do then make them pay you. The End. Full stop. HAND. TYVFM.
| FOAD. Etc. Ad nauseum. Anyone who says otherwise should not be
| engaged but simply told to get lost... because if they want
| Free Shit then they know where to find it.
| kiba wrote:
| Open source is never about you working for free or not being
| able to charge money for shit.
| EarlKing wrote:
| The OSI thinks otherwise:
|
| > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
|
| > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of
| the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example,
| it may not restrict the program from being used in a
| business, or from being used for genetic research.
|
| -- Source: https://opensource.org/osd
|
| They've been pushing this line for decades.
| itrollpussies wrote:
| I see OSI version of open source as forced labor, the best
| I can do is open source my work, meaning make the source
| code open source, people can use it for free but as soon as
| you want to commercialize my work, you gotta pay.
|
| If you anyone is about to say that isn't open source, well,
| there is nothing you can do about it, sorry
| ohiovr wrote:
| It breeds animosity if a open source software project closes
| the doors to the original developers who intended the project
| to be free software. Plex is an example.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| What use is accessible code if you're not (legally) allowed to
| do anything with it? It's a bit like having an all you can eat
| buffet but you're not allowed to eat the food only look.
|
| I agree that there is one upside though, there's a chance the
| code can be used again after collapse of civilization when we
| find that someone made a backup.
| Grimburger wrote:
| > if you're not (legally) allowed to do anything with it
|
| You mean make money from it? You're allowed to anything you
| can imagine for private purposes.
|
| I was specifically talking about dual non-
| commercial/commercial licenses above.
| kiba wrote:
| Non-commercial licenses are by definition not open source.
| svnpenn wrote:
| thats a semantic argument. "source available" is in
| practice the same thing as "open source", unless you are
| a business trying to make money off free software.
| LtWorf wrote:
| > You're allowed to anything you can imagine for private
| purposes.
|
| Not legally, no.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I can think of one immediate example: Auditing it.
|
| Open source means you can read the source code, which is a
| very powerful tool at your disposal.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _Open source means you can read the source code_
|
| Note: It doesn't _only_ mean that.
| ohiovr wrote:
| I have over 750 thousand files in my root file system. I've
| never audited any of them. What about the libraries I use
| for my personal projects? Crosses fingers..
| ohiovr wrote:
| Does Unreal Engine make their source inspectable and
| modifiable?
| matkoniecz wrote:
| > The fervent animosity towards dual free non-commercial/paid
| commercial licenses in the foss world has always puzzled me. In
| the end it is source code readable by anyone yeah?
|
| Yes, but I cannot for example use it if I received grant to
| develop open source application.
|
| Maybe above is overly cautious. Buy I have enough legal
| uncertainty with dealing how to tax grant income, I do not need
| more of it.
|
| I would instead appreciate license even more toxic for
| corporations than GPLv3 - which would not block use by small
| players.
|
| > What would you actually prefer, it stays locked up forever?
|
| The problem is that it is usually alternative to free
| software/open source - not completely secret code.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > I would instead appreciate license even more toxic for
| corporations than GPLv3 - which would not block use by small
| players.
|
| Something like the Reciprocal Public License?
| https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5
| svnpenn wrote:
| RPL still allows commercial use, so you might as well just
| use GPL
| davidw wrote:
| It's all about finding or creating something that is actually
| scarce, unlike the open source software itself:
| https://journal.dedasys.com/2007/02/03/in-thrall-to-scarcity...
| davidw wrote:
| Uh, wow, ok. What don't people get about this? If a good is
| non-rivalrous and non-exclusive (or close to it), it's kind of
| tough to get people to pay for it, so you have to find
| something else they'll pay for.
| pabs3 wrote:
| More resources for paid open source work:
|
| https://github.com/fossjobs/fossjobs/wiki/resources
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| How do you become financially independent by developing your own
| Open Source project?
|
| Short answer --- in most cases you don't.
|
| To earn enough money to survive, most have to do something other
| than software development --- like provide a service, provide
| support or sell a non-open version. Becoming a charity (a
| software panhandler) is an option but most can't survive this
| way.
|
| Down vote if it makes you feel better but the most obvious, basic
| fact remains --- open source devalues the work of software
| development --- and is thus self limiting. Do it long enough and
| financial reality will intrude and convince you that you need to
| do something else.
| nvln wrote:
| If you have an itch to scratch, and you are really good at
| scratching that itch, and if many have that itch or will get
| it, OSS will open a lot of doors for you. If you can build a
| OSS-ish company like supabase or n8n, good for you. But you
| stand to win anyway.
|
| It's not as cut and dried as direct compensation for effort or
| time, but with some luck, you will get to places that a regular
| job may not take you.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _If you can build a OSS-ish company like supabase or n8n,
| good for you._
|
| Notice that one of the first things you'll find at the very
| top of these company's web sites is *Pricing*.
|
| These are primarily service providers --- with a limited/non-
| tested/demo/??? version of the source available --- mainly
| for marketing purposes.
| beecafe wrote:
| Software is trivial to make, it should rightly have no value.
| j1elo wrote:
| That's like saying that words are trivial to write, so books
| have no value. While it's trivial to write an "if", it's not
| trivial to know how to write a lot of "ifs" to make an IA
| that people find useful. And _that_ knowledge is where the
| value of software resides.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| > Software is trivial to make...
|
| ... after one has developed countless man-years obtaining
| knowledge of how to solve complex problems.
|
| Actually, you know what? Still not trivial.
|
| It's _easier_ for people with the desire to do this type of
| work. It 's _easier_ depending on the domain.
|
| But it's not "trivial".
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Have you ever developed software?
|
| It consumes the most precious, valuable thing you will ever
| have --- your time.
|
| Time is more valuable then money --- you can always get more
| money but you can never get more time.
|
| *Your* time may not have any value --- but mine does.
| beecafe wrote:
| Everything takes time. Something has (exchange) value if
| you get given something of value in exchange for it.
| Something has (intrinsic) value if you value that thing
| itself to give value in exchange for it, even if nobody
| else would give it any exchange value. This could be due to
| scarcity, sentimentality, or rarity.
|
| Unless you're deeply sentimental about the software you've
| produced, it has no value.
| lupire wrote:
| Look up the term "public good".
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _Everything takes time._
|
| Everything that takes time costs money. Why is software
| an exception?
|
| Try telling a carpenter or an auto technician he
| shouldn't be paid for his work time because "everything
| takes time". How did software developers take a left turn
| at reality?
|
| _it has no value._
|
| I really don't care as long as people pay me for it.
| silent_cal wrote:
| I am so grateful for open source software because it is a huge
| sacrifice for someone to develop it for free when they could
| easily charge for it, and would be totally justified in doing
| so.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Sure, if someone wants to make the sacrifice, by all means go
| for it.
|
| But the point is that everyone needs some financial return on
| their work in order to survive. And a sacrifice may not be
| the best plan to obtain it.
| lupire wrote:
| > open source devalues the work of software development
|
| Deprices, not devalues.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Tomato, to-mato.
| ohiovr wrote:
| Software has no intrinsic value. It is harder to convey value
| of any kind unless it makes life easier somehow. But soon it
| gets replaced in a cascade of new solutions from the future
| that are hard to predict.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| So you're telling me that my software doesn't make life
| easier for my clients?
|
| It's pretty obvious that they disagree; otherwise, they
| wouldn't pay me. My bank account has the proof to the
| contrary.
| tremon wrote:
| That's extrinsic value -- the value is derived not from the
| software itself, but from the gain in quality of life it
| gives your clients.
| ohiovr wrote:
| It is hard(-er) to convey value of any kind unless it makes
| life easier somehow.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| What software doesn't make life easier? Why would such
| software ever get built?
| ohiovr wrote:
| Adobe Flash and Actionscript 3.0. As for why actionscript
| 3.0 was made it was built I think Adobe wanted to turn
| Flash into an application programming language. And it
| failed pretty badly at this. Actionscript 2.0 had a well
| defined purpose that is to control animation. But
| Actionscript 3.0 became a monster that imposed a lot of
| work to do those basic things and it really did not excel
| at anything beyond that.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Why does anyone use them if they don't make life easier?
|
| They must do, otherwise nobody would use them.
| ohiovr wrote:
| Because they are or were fooled like me.
| eesmith wrote:
| Your comment is incomplete, because in most cases you don't
| become financially independent by developing your own
| proprietary project.
|
| Most proprietary projects also need to do something other than
| software development, including providing support.
|
| Also, software development itself devalues the work of software
| development. That's what software libraries _do_. Around 1990 I
| would use Borland 's graphics library, which came with the
| compiler I bought, because it was better than what I could do,
| and I had already paid for it.
|
| That said, I agree that an open source _product_ is NOT an
| effective way of maximizing wealth extraction. Even something
| as simple as market segmentation, like discounts for students,
| is difficult if that student can turn around and place it on
| GitHub.
|
| Other options, like an OSS project funded by being cost savings
| to your employer (eg, to leave an expensive vendor, or to drive
| the supplier prices down), are easier to get paid for, though
| yes, also not enough to be financially independent.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _because in most cases you don 't become financially
| independent by developing your own proprietary project._
|
| The last *job* I had was over 20 years ago.
|
| And I am not alone --- I know others who have done similar
| --- but _not_ by way of open source.
|
| _including providing support._
|
| True --- but the difference is, I can actually *pay* others
| to do most of this for me. My primary job is developing new
| software.
| eesmith wrote:
| Sure, and I made a living for 5 or so years selling open
| source software w/ support.
|
| The thing is, both of use are in the small minority.
|
| Few software projects result in financial independence for
| the original authors, open source _or_ proprietary.
|
| After all, selling something in Apple's app store isn't a
| sure way to earn money.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-29 23:01 UTC)