[HN Gopher] FLOSS/fund for free and open source projects
___________________________________________________________________
FLOSS/fund for free and open source projects
Author : joice
Score : 368 points
Date : 2024-10-16 09:02 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (floss.fund)
(TXT) w3m dump (floss.fund)
| theragra wrote:
| Interesting that these kind of things are done by less known
| companies, not the big names. At least that's my (uninformed)
| impression.
| olibhel wrote:
| FYI - Zerodha is the biggest platform for retail investors in
| the Indian markets.
| louthy wrote:
| To be fair Microsoft have been making contributions. I've
| received two $1000 contributions from them in the past couple
| of years.
|
| It's obviously not enough to give up the day job, but it dwarfs
| all other contributions I've had.
| oefrha wrote:
| In my experience developers as a whole are very stingy, even
| though they complain about companies not donating to open
| source all the time, and complain when companies do donate
| but the amount is too little for their liking. (For instance,
| when I google "microsoft foss fund payout" the first result
| after the official landing page is
| https://lobste.rs/s/wyvnuu/microsoft_foss_fund_winner_curl
| complaining about the amount.)
|
| As a data point, my open source web app for a casual game
| received thousands of dollars of donations (not remotely
| covering the development cost if we go by hourly rate but
| that's never the goal), while my open source developer tool
| with a couple thousand stars on GitHub received <$50 over
| several years. I don't beg for donations in either case, just
| an inconspicuous link.
|
| Disclosure: I donate a very modest amount to various projects
| every year.
| rvnx wrote:
| I have a theory for why developers complain it is too low.
| A large recurring "donation" can be a bit of a trap.
|
| In practice it can be an hidden freelancing or employment
| relationship.
|
| Donators actually expect you to do things in return, for
| example with cURL they expect the developer to do security
| fixes.
|
| Otherwise they will not get the "donation" the next month
|
| It may not be written on a paper for legal reasons, but it
| is made for a good reason.
|
| A true donation you do not expect for anything in return.
|
| This could explain why they consider donation too low. A
| gift cannot be too small. But a gift where the giver has
| very high expectations in return may be too low.
| oefrha wrote:
| > Otherwise they will not get the "donation" the next
| month
|
| Claw back this month's "donation" if I don't meet your
| expectations -- sure, that's an air quotes donation.
|
| No donation next month if I don't meet your expectations
| -- that's just a bona fide donation like any other.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| I hate open source and would consider myself the chief
| anti-open source crusader online. I always try to avoid
| FOSS and pay indie developers for their software. However,
| in a few cases I've been forced to use FOSS solutions when
| there's been no other alternative, and then I donate to the
| creator of it. And I always see the same thing. Thousands
| and thousands of downloads over the years and the creator
| has earned only a hundred dollars in donations.
|
| It's pathetic, and just shows that most people haven't
| evolved spiritually beyond being freeloaders whenever they
| can.
|
| No wonder millions would rather stand in line the whole day
| to get free bread than pay just a little for their food.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| For every perceived freeloader is someone who selflessly
| donated their time and energy so that someone else could
| benefit from it and improve it if they wanted to.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Somebody who selflessly donated their time and effort to
| people who won't even make a symbolic donation as thanks.
| And the biggest freeloaders of them all are giant
| businesses and high salaried engineers working for them.
| Shareholders are laughing their ass off at open source
| developers helping them rake in millions and getting
| nothing in return.
|
| In the real world, if somebody invites you for dinner you
| eat for free. If you get invited a hundred times for
| dinner without inviting back or bringing a bottle of
| wine, then you're a freeloader. And the guy inviting you
| is being taken advantage of, he's not being generous.
| Especially if you start charging other people for eating
| dinner for free at his house.
|
| Funnily, I've noted in tech circles, that they many times
| in the real world do not understand reciprocity. They get
| invited or treated to something and say "that was great,
| thanks!". Then they keep getting culled from the
| invitation lists, because they never invite back.
| Vegenoid wrote:
| I'm not quite sure how these are supposed to balance each
| other? User who benefits and contributes nothing is
| balanced by the hardworking contributor? And there is
| certainly not a contributor for every user.
| normie3000 wrote:
| This is a really interesting perspective! When have you
| been forced to use FOSS? What OS do you use? Is big-
| company FOSS ok for you?
| carlosjobim wrote:
| I've had to use FOSS in cases when there's no paid option
| of equivalent features. When I do, I donate. When I
| donate I see how little other people have donated. People
| who certainly are richer than me, but are spiritually
| still stuck on freeloader mentality.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I think any employee in tech should appeal to their employers
| to donate / contribute to the open source projects they use.
| ignoramous wrote:
| Appealing will only get so far in any bureaucratic mess,
| especially if those responsible for the decision are way
| above your pay grade.
|
| These companies instead should carve out a matching donation
| program for employees funding FOSS projects.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Playing devil's advocate/CFO, what value does "the business"
| receive from this transaction?
| pritambarhate wrote:
| Actually many big name companies do contribute a lot to open
| source. Few Examples:
|
| https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members
| https://openjsf.org/members
| https://www.python.org/psf/sponsors/
| rwmj wrote:
| Red Hat funds FOSS developers to work on open source projects
| to probably 100x - 500x this amount every year.
| ignoramous wrote:
| To apply, the project must place a _funding.json_ in their public
| code repository or at a _well-known_ uri location on their
| domain: https://dir.floss.fund/submit
|
| That's already 10x more simpler than the 20 page document some of
| these other orgs have you fill. Looking at you Llama Impact
| Grants, OpenAI Cybersecurity Grants, NLNet, & OpenTechFund.
|
| ---
|
| Disclaimer: A project I co-develop was granted PS3.75k in 2023
| back when _FOSS United_ grants were co-sponsored by Zerodha (the
| same company behind FLOSS /fund). The entire process was over in
| like 3 days from the date of application.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| They probably need more stuff for tax (tax deduction) reasons,
| after all it can be considered a (deductible) donation.
| rileymat2 wrote:
| I am curious, out of ignorance, if business many expenses are
| deductible anyway, what would be the fundamental difference
| between calling it a Marketing/Advertising expense to buy
| community good will compared with a charitable deduction?
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| The IRS doesn't like businesses that only lose money, also
| known as hobbies.
|
| That's why you can't say you are a musician and expense
| your $700 Fender pedals.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| huh I thought they were called startups ;)
| j33zusjuice wrote:
| I don't know the answer, but I _think_ it depends on how
| the money gets appropriated. You can't buy a TV spot and
| call it good will, but could you setup a food drive in a
| large target city and you setup a bunch of fun shit for
| families and kids, and during which you also promoted your
| business. Can a corp write that off? Seems like the answer
| would be yes, but maybe not.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > They probably need more stuff for tax (tax deduction)
| reasons, after all it can be considered a (deductible)
| donation.
|
| Zerodha is India's Robinhood.
|
| In India, it's very difficult to get a deductible donation
| exemption because of how easy it would be to game.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > That's already 10x more simpler than the 20 page document
| some of these other orgs have you fill. Looking at you
|
| I guess somebody has to point out the obvious ....
|
| First, the process is probably simpler because the donation
| amounts are going to be smaller. If there's only $1M per year
| in the bank, I somehow don't see them giving out the sorts of
| large sums the others you mentioned do, e.g. OpenTechFund says
| it will give up to $400,000 ... I don't see that happening with
| a fund that only has $1M a year to give out.
|
| Second, building on the above, giving out large sums involves a
| greater amount of due diligence.
|
| Finally, sadly, the most obvious point .... a longer form helps
| sort the wheat from the chaff. Both in terms of cutting down
| the volume of applications some poor soul has to trawl over,
| but also helping keep the quality of applications high.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _First, the process is probably simpler because the
| donation amounts are going to be smaller._
|
| I've applied to each of those funds for ~PS5k. The process
| remains the same.
| patcon wrote:
| From the post:
|
| > Put money where the mouth is--a minimum of $10,000 and up
| to $100,000 for a single recipient, totaling $1 million per
| year, which we will increase once we understand the dynamics
| of running the fund.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > once we understand the dynamics of running the fund
|
| I suspect that phrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting and
| would not be surprised if the length of the required
| paperwork increases in good time.
|
| It is also worth reading the FAQ, it very much sounds like
| it remains the case that you are not going to escape 20
| pages of paperwork, just that they are kicking the can down
| the road:
|
| _" If your application is accepted, our team will reach
| out to you for the necessary paperwork (such as tax
| residency documents required by Indian laws) before
| processing the funds. This generally involves back-and-
| forth communication over email and can take up to 4 weeks"_
| Semaphor wrote:
| > just that they are kicking the can down the road:
|
| "Just" does a lot of heavy lifting here, considering that
| you only need all that paperwork if you are accepted ;)
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > "Just" does a lot of heavy lifting here
|
| No, it does not.
|
| Might I invite you to consider the context of what I am
| saying ?
|
| The OP here was boasting about "all you need" is a
| _funding.json_ and none of the 20 pages of forms of the
| other organisations the OP chose to name and shame.
|
| What I am saying is you're not going to escape those 20
| pages. Do it now or do it later, you're still going to
| have to put in more effort than "just" a _funding.json_.
|
| That is why I took issue with the OP naming and shaming
| the other organisations. It is both misleading and unfair
| on the other funders.
| Semaphor wrote:
| I considered the context, and lo and behold, it says "To
| apply".
|
| Which makes a huge difference, because you do indeed
| escape those 20 pages if you are not accepted.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _What I am saying is you 're not going to escape those
| 20 pages._
|
| I don't think that's clear at all. The part you quoted
| mentions tax forms as an example of what will need to be
| filled out afterward. Of course you'll need to fill those
| sorts of things out, and that feels very distinct from
| some sort of multi-page application where you have to
| tell them why you believe you deserve the grant. And the
| start of the sentence you quoted is, "If your application
| is accepted", which to me implies that they're going to
| make a firm yes/no decision as to whether to give you
| money based solely on the funding.json thing.
|
| Of course only time will tell how this will work out in
| practice, but their initial wording seems to suggest they
| will make a go/no-go decision based on a very simple
| "application".
| breck wrote:
| > Finally, sadly, the most obvious point .... a longer form
| helps sort the wheat from the chaff. Both in terms of cutting
| down the volume of applications some poor soul has to trawl
| over, but also helping keep the quality of applications high.
|
| Opposite effect, actually. Longer forms get you a lot of the
| top 10%, but you miss out on the top 0.0001% who don't want
| to waste their time with people who aren't smart enough to
| design a brief form.
| Larrikin wrote:
| Is there any actual evidence of this? It seems to just be
| something lazy people who believe themselves to be smart
| would say.
| breck wrote:
| > Is there any actual evidence of this?
|
| Great question.
|
| Some starting ideas to look for datasets: look at quality
| of innovation coming out of YC (short form that can be
| completed in < 10 minutes) versus many government
| agencies such as NIH (long, horrible application process
| that require attending training sessions).
| specproc wrote:
| I worked in non-profit funding for many a year, and in the
| more traditional charity space, there's zero -- even negative
| -- correlation between grant value and effort.
|
| It's also not just about the initial (typically multi-stage)
| application, but then the reporting and compliance
| requirements, the random donor requests.
|
| This sort of thing is often objectively worse for smaller
| funders, but also relatively worse with smaller amounts of
| money as it's harder to resource for people to deal with the
| crap. Grant money ain't free.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Applying for an nlnet grant generously takes like an afternoon.
| Like the entire rationale for their organization is to prevent
| you from having to write 20 pages of fluff to appeal to EU
| bureaucrats, so you can be to the point and chat with
| technically minded people instead.
| j33zusjuice wrote:
| Are you saying that as a good or bad thing (an afternoon)? I
| have no clue if that's good or bad, never done this kinda
| thing (more of a sysadmin than a SWE).
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Comparatively very good. There are cases where it's weeks
| worth of paperwork and documetation.
| chubot wrote:
| I concur with the other reply -- in my experience, it's not
| difficult to apply for an NLnet grant, or receive funds from
| one
| Kovah wrote:
| I wonder what projects will end up receiving money from this
| fund. It's nice that more funds are available, but my best guess
| would be that these will go to projects which probably don't
| really need them anyway.
|
| From my experience, open source projects are either big and
| massively funded, able to pay their own developers a salary, or
| the projects end up in a void filled with burned-out maintainers
| whose only appreciation is an occasional $15 donation and issues
| filled with negativity and sometimes even hatred.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Doesn't this target exactly your second case? Successful
| projects in terms of usage and impact that can't be maintained
| by volunteers alone?
| kijin wrote:
| What does a one-time donation between $10k and $100k do to
| help the second case? Perhaps it will allow the maintainer to
| take a few months off and work full-time on the project, or
| maybe hire someone to clear the backlog. But what happens
| afterward? Without a clear pathway to making the project
| self-sustaining, you've merely postponed maintainer burnout
| by a couple of years at best.
|
| The biggest problem with occasional $15 donations is that
| they're _occasional_. Sustainability requires a somewhat
| stable ARR.
| asicsp wrote:
| >Perhaps it will allow the maintainer to take a few months
| off
|
| Depends on where you live too - $10k would take care of 5
| years for me.
|
| From my experience though, it is better to figure out a way
| to sell something in addition to the open stuff.
| talelcool wrote:
| The owner of this website (floss.fund) has banned the country or
| region your IP address is in (TN) from accessing this website.
| talelcool wrote:
| Our regional view of your open fund :)
| edm0nd wrote:
| is your IP on any blacklists?
| mr-karan wrote:
| Hi, I'm from Zerodha. Thank you for bringing this to our
| attention. It was a misconfiguration on our end, which we've
| now patched.
| youssefabdelm wrote:
| * Fine print: For successful projects only, and up to $100K per
| year per project
|
| ----
|
| From their FAQ:
|
| > Currently, our focus is on supporting existing, widely used,
| and impactful projects to specifically contribute to their
| sustainability. Very new projects or projects with minimal usage
| are not considered for the time being.
|
| > A project can apply for funding of up to $100,000 in one year.
| To keep the logistics and operational overhead of the fund
| reasonable, we accept requests in denominations of a minimum of
| $10,000 and multiples of $25,000 thereafter.
|
| https://floss.fund/faq/
|
| A better title: Floss/fund: Up to $100K/year for popular open
| source projects
|
| Still admirable though...
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Charitable giving ought to have less conditions than an
| investment. Of course, the opposite is true.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| > Charitable giving ought to have less conditions than an
| investment.
|
| You should give a "why" with your statement.
| j33zusjuice wrote:
| Agreed. Isn't it better to donate to something that's
| actually used than something that might have an audience of
| 1? It'd be nice to see donations to newer projects gaining
| momentum, but they get to choose how to hand out the cash.
| I just hope it's not projects that are already
| exceptionally well funded (it'd be kinda ridicous if they
| gave $100k for Linux, for example).
| ohashi wrote:
| I was curious how they might handle something that isn't ready
| yet, but in the process of being built. But that answers it,
| it's not eligible. Oh well :( Plenty of good open source out
| there deserving as well.
| DowagerDave wrote:
| you're describing a startup with no business model.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| So while this effort is commendable, it will do nothing to
| help open source projects that are good, but just have not
| become popular yet.
|
| It makes you wonder how many projects are out there which
| have tremendous potential but still lack a critical feature
| or two that a bit of funding would help bring to fruition.
| herpdyderp wrote:
| I want to know what their criteria for "widely used" is.
| dang wrote:
| Thanks--we've taken the dollars out of the title above.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| I wonder if they would fund a fork of WordPress given the mess
| that's become as of late.
|
| Perhaps such move would spark others to also fund such a fork.
| jph wrote:
| Great idea! I'm trying it now by adding the file `funding.json`
| to two of my FOSS projects. Feedback welcome. Donations welcome.
| :-)
|
| 1. Assertables is a Rust crate that provides assert macros for
| smarter testing: https://github.com/SixArm/assertables-rust-
| crate/blob/main/f...
|
| 2. BoldContacts is a mobile app that helps people who have
| disabilities: https://github.com/BoldContacts/boldcontacts-
| mobile-app-for-...
|
| Results so far:
|
| 1. The JSON spec validation seems to be problematic. For example,
| I get an error message and there's no obvious way to handle it:
| "entity.webpageUrl.url and manifest URL host and paths do not
| match. Expected entity.webpageUrl.wellKnown for provenance check
| at https://linktr.ee/joelparkerhenderson/*/.well-
| known/funding-..."
|
| 2. An opportunity for improvement is for the JSON spec to favor
| each project having all it's own information in the JSON file
| i.e. orient the file toward the project, rather than toward a
| specific developer, and definitely not toward the naming
| convention of "/.well-known" subdirectory (which doesn't exist in
| many projects and has a history of glitches because it's a hidden
| dot directory).
|
| IMHO success looks like making the file spec simpler, even it
| means skipping some of the manifest capabilities.
| mr-karan wrote:
| Hey, I'm from Zerodha team.
|
| 1. Regarding the validation, this error seems to be related to
| the provenance check mechanism in the spec. This is to prove
| ownership of that project/domain. The wellKnown field is
| designed to handle cases where the webpageUrl doesn't match the
| manifest URL.
|
| 2. Will definitely be passing the feedback to our team and
| evaluate this further!
| breck wrote:
| Aloha! I think there's something novel you could do here that
| would catch on like wildfire. Here is me coding up the
| basics:
|
| https://youtu.be/4BH8DRXwVRw?t=317
|
| Feel free to connect via email if you want to chat more
| breck7@gmail.com
| jph wrote:
| Thanks for the reply. It turns out the current JSON file
| approach can't prove ownership of the project nor the domain,
| so perhaps there's a gap in my understanding or your team's
| understanding...? Feel free to contact me about this a
| because I believe in your mission:
| joel@joelparkerhenderson.com
|
| Some options that I use successfully with other donations
| services and funding services...
|
| - A unique token per project published in a project file
|
| - A unique token per domain published in a DNS TXT record
|
| - A verification of the project's existing setup, such as
| using GitHub API access or OAuth
|
| - A forwarding to the project's existing funding link, such
| as using a project's GitHub sponsors link
|
| - A heuristic with the person's existing payment links, such
| as contact info being identical on GitHub and Venmo
|
| - A challenge/response, such as verifying a small random
| payment
|
| - A dedicated KYC process such as with a background checking
| service.
| from-nibly wrote:
| Would be even more interesting to start an endowment type fund.
| Donate some of that fund directly save some of it and extract the
| interest over time. After a while the fund would be self
| sufficiently pumping out donations.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| > Has the project received any funding in the past? Is it in dire
| need of support, or is it doing reasonably well?
|
| I think it would be better if funding for open source was more
| based on what it's worth to you then what the project needs, just
| like paying for a commercial product. That would more strongly
| encourage valuable open source projects, risks, creativity,
| efficiency.
| myprotegeai wrote:
| I've maintained a fairly popular open source project for over 13
| years[1]. The software is basically "complete." How does funding
| work for someone like me? I have no initiatives with it that
| require funding. Occasionally, I need to fix a bizarre obscure
| bug, or support a new python version/feature (async/await being
| the last big one). But otherwise, I just field questions a few
| times a month.
|
| Truth be told, I'd rather be done with the project completely.
| It's like a little monkey on my back that I can never be rid of,
| that I must always tend to. But at the same time, since I can
| never realistically receive funding for it, the only value I get
| is the fact that my name is on it. I wish a big, legit company
| would just buy it off of me somehow, but there's no incentive for
| them either. I don't know how this ends.
|
| 1. https://github.com/amoffat/sh
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| It's always an option to just publicly announce that you will
| no longer maintain it anymore and that you are either looking
| for a successor, or encouraging the community to fork it.
| andris9 wrote:
| I had the exact same experience with Nodemailer, a popular
| open-source project I started 14 years ago. My solution was to
| empty the README file and set up a dedicated documentation
| website. Since the project is popular, the documentation
| website receives around 70,000 visits per month. I initially
| tried paid ads, but they only netted about $200 per month--not
| great. So, I started a commercial project somewhat related to
| Nodemailer and added ads for my new project on Nodemailer's
| documentation page. This brings in around 3,000 visits per
| month to my paid project through the ads on the documentation
| page. Even if the conversion rate is low, it's essentially free
| traffic for my paid project, which is now approaching $10,000
| MRR. Without the free visitor flow from my OSS project's
| documentation page, I definitely wouldn't have made it this
| far.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| This is a really interesting approach, I hadn't thought of
| this!
|
| Just out of curiosity, do you think the separate
| documentation page has better conversion than if you were to,
| say, include the ad directly into the readme _inside_ the
| repo?
| andris9 wrote:
| You have less control over formatting and ad placement in
| the README file, as rendered markdown offers only limited
| options. With a dedicated documentation website, it's much
| easier.
|
| It's also a question of sovereignty. If your documentation
| is in the README, then GitHub owns the audience. If they,
| for some reason, close your project, you're finished. With
| your own documentation page, the risk is much lower.
| aserafini wrote:
| Very interesting! I wonder if, sadly, the rise of AI-assisted
| coding will chip away also at this potential revenue stream?
| As developers simply ask a local or cloud LLM how to use a
| piece a software instead of reading the documentation.
| myprotegeai wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. It's an interesting idea, to try to
| trampoline it into another related commercial project. I just
| checked my RTD analytics, I get around 1k pageviews to `/`
| per month. Unfortunately I don't have a related commercial
| product either.
| andris9 wrote:
| When I started with Nodemailer, my goal was to build a cool
| product--not to become an unpaid helpdesk employee for
| life. But here we are. So, I've been trying to monetize the
| project in various ways for the past ten years. I've tried
| everything (license restrictions, freelancing and
| consulting, paid extensions, etc.), and each approach
| failed for different reasons. The only strategy that
| actually took off was using Nodemailer's documentation page
| as a referral source for another relevant paid project.
| cxr wrote:
| When someone no longer enjoys the food in a restaurant, they
| tend to stop going. Why not do the same: just not do the thing
| that you wish not to do?
| kelnos wrote:
| You can always just stop working on it. You aren't obligated to
| do anything further if it doesn't bring you joy. Update the
| README to say you've stopped maintaining it, and to add a bit
| about searching for a new maintainer.
|
| If you believe you still get an ongoing benefit (reputational
| or whatever) by being its maintainer and continuing to support
| it, and if you still want that benefit, then you have to keep
| up the work. Very little in life is truly free, unfortunately.
|
| You could also see if there's a way to monetize your work on
| it. If people want support or need bugs fixed, they can pay you
| to do so, for example. Might even look into GitHub Sponsors, if
| you haven't already. I do get that it's harder to solicit
| donations for something that's "finished", though.
| adeptima wrote:
| "The rise of the "open core" model and the unfortunate license
| changes in many good open projects recently, are clear signs of
| this growing turmoil. ... That said, Python libraries raising
| massive amounts of VC funding in quick time does not look like a
| healthy trend."
|
| I call it a "happy problem" - kind of problem you get in with lot
| of money.
|
| All participating parties are having middle class above life
| style and looking for the way to balance each other.
| chaosprint wrote:
| I have been developing and maintaining https://glicol.org for 4
| years. I have donation page on github but only got it from 2
| people. It seems all the donation service providers requirs
| login. I don't know why we cannot have a guest mode like regular
| shopping website.
| ozim wrote:
| Mostly we cannot have nice things because bad guys will come
| over and exploit it for some nefarious reasons.
| sheerun wrote:
| Actually good idea
| hellcow wrote:
| Instead of structuring this as a fund, why not a non-profit? Then
| you could solicit tax-deductible donations which get funneled to
| these FOSS projects as part of your mission. Seems like a
| possible way to scale this to something much larger than
| yourselves.
| pacmansyyu wrote:
| Hi, I'm from the team at Zerodha.
|
| > Instead of structuring this as a fund, why not a non-profit?
|
| Thank you, this is an interesting suggestion. While a non-
| profit structure could potentially increase donations,
| implementing this globally would be extremely complex.
|
| Particularly because tax laws vary by country, which would
| require us to be registered as a non-profit in most, if not all
| countries, and comply with their jurisdiction. The
| administrative overhead and legal complexities of managing a
| truly international non-profit outweighs the benefits for our
| current scale. We appreciate the idea and will keep it in mind
| as we grow, but for now, we're focusing on efficiently
| directing funds to FOSS projects through our current model.
| simonhamp wrote:
| I am trying to submit my funding.json, it validates when I check
| the validator, but fails when I submit with the error: "too many
| lines in the .well-known list"
|
| I have 1 line in my .well-known lists
|
| Here's my funding.json:
|
| https://nativephp.com/funding.json
|
| Can someone help me figure out what I'm doing wrong?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| So my best guess is that even though the validator succeeds,
| the actual submission is pulling the GitHub page for the well-
| known instead of its raw content. The problem is you also can't
| really fix this yourself: The raw file is hosted at
| raw.githubusercontent.com which wouldn't match your source URL.
|
| Hopefully they will fix their submission tool. I did see one
| project submitted successfully by having domain.com/github
| point to their project URL, which the submission accepted, but
| that causes certificate errors.
| pacmansyyu wrote:
| Hi, I'm from the team at Zerodha. It seems as if the well-known
| URL for the laravel repository points to the GitHub page[1]
| instead of the URL for the raw code[2]. Changing the well-known
| URL to the raw code path should fix this issue. Will pass this
| feedback on to the team to improve the experience, thanks!
|
| [1]: https://github.com/nativephp/laravel/blob/main/.well-
| known/f... [2]:
| https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nativephp/laravel/refs/hea...
| simonhamp wrote:
| Sure, but that's not how it's demonstrated in the docs...
|
| I've updated it, but that also doesn't work AND fails
| validation because:
|
| "projects[0].repositoryUrl.url and
| `projects[0].repositoryUrl.wellKnown` hostnames do not match"
| pacmansyyu wrote:
| Apologies for my previous misguiding comment. We have
| figured out the issue and a fix is being implemented right
| now to handle URLs for GitHub repositories and suffix them
| with `?raw=true` to automatically to fetch the raw file.
| The fix should be live soon.
|
| In the meanwhile, if you would like to submit the project,
| you could use the following URL which redirects to the
| `raw.githubusercontent.com` page:
| https://github.com/nativephp/laravel/raw/main/.well-
| known/fu...
|
| I hope this helps!
| simonhamp wrote:
| Awesome! It worked! Thanks so much.
|
| Looking forward to being listed and considered for
| funding :)
| pacmansyyu wrote:
| Cheers! The issue has been fixed now and is live. Thanks
| a lot for your feedback :)
| breck wrote:
| Love this! Love how you start with the BLUF (Apply now up top).
| Lots of great thinking here.
|
| I think since you are starting this from scratch you can do
| something pretty revolutionary with your application (and far
| simpler, long term!). I demonstrate in the user test below.
|
| Here's my user test:
| https://news.pub/?try=https://www.youtube.com/embed/4BH8DRXw...
| knowitnone wrote:
| This is great. However, I'd rather Zerodha just award the FOSS
| projects they use instead of having random projects apply. I hope
| many more companies do this especially the big companies. I'm
| guessing there are also tax incentives at play here.
| mr-karan wrote:
| From the blog post
|
| > In addition, we have given out many sizeable grants to FOSS
| projects and organisations in India. While funding projects
| outside India involves significant paperwork and operational
| overhead, we have reached out to several small and large
| projects that we use at work and have managed to pay them. This
| highly ad hoc approach is something that has increasingly
| bugged me though.
| brynet wrote:
| This seems very "project focused" rather than developer focused,
| many people contribute to open source projects but don't
| necessarily represent their project or don't wish to take away
| funding from those projects, but could still desperately use
| funding for their work.
|
| I have a personal donation page but I'm struggling to get and
| retain funding, especially monthly donations, which would make it
| easier to spend time on the projects I contribute to (either my
| time highlighting the work of others on social media, or writing
| code).
|
| https://brynet.ca/wallofpizza.html
| meonkeys wrote:
| "projects" top-level key should be labeled "Required" at
| https://floss.fund/funding-manifest/
| remram wrote:
| It seems that "plans" are required? Or is that just a quirk of
| the builder UI?
| meonkeys wrote:
| Yep, at least one plan is required. See
| https://floss.fund/funding-manifest/#schema
| remram wrote:
| So, I should create a plan with amount=0, set the currency to
| USD anyway, and label it "any donation appreciated"? What is
| the workflow?
| vishnumohandas wrote:
| Built a GUI[1] to generate funding.json, with help from Claude.
|
| This XKCD[2] is perhaps becoming less relevant.
|
| [1]: https://vishnukvmd.github.io/funding.json
|
| [2]: https://xkcd.com/974
| bravura wrote:
| Suggestion:
|
| Add "passthrough" field with a float value, and the idea is that
| you are sub-awarding a percentage of your grant to projects that
| you rely upon or want to succeed.
|
| Then, people who are not open source maintainers but do spend
| their time indexing high-quality open source can have a 1.0 pass
| through funding.json passthrough to repos they believe are worth
| supporting.
|
| And people who do not spend their time indexing high-quality open
| source but trust other people that DO spend their time indexing
| high-quality open source can have an index fund of donation
| streams.
|
| In which case we can welcome both people who want to endow but
| don't have time and the people who have time but can't endow as
| much.
|
| If anyone is interested in talking to me about this problem, I'm
| down
| myroon5 wrote:
| Interesting funding.json made no mention of FUNDING.yml:
|
| https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-16 23:01 UTC)