News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Preact: Countering the Perception That Open Source Must B... by arjie on Monday March 13, 2017 @07:01PM (#13863354)
To be honest, the only time I'm going to pay for open source is if you bounty or ransom it and I want it. Neovim for instance.

OpenSSH, probably never. Just being honest here. And considering half the population here blocks ads, I doubt they'd pay either.

Re:Preact: Countering the Perception That Open Source Must B... by JoshTriplett on Monday March 13, 2017 @09:52PM (#13864334)
> And considering half the population here blocks ads, I doubt they'd pay either.

I block ads. I also happily support artists via Patreon (for significantly more than I pay to Netflix and Amazon), give money to many different FOSS projects, and arrange for my employer to give substantial quantities of money to FOSS projects.

Re:Preact: Countering the Perception That Open Source Must B... by alannallama on Monday March 13, 2017 @07:47PM (#13863671)
Makes sense that you'd only want to pay for things that provide you with value directly. I think that applies when donating a small amount to support a project you make use of, when you get something in return (like a t-shirt or sticker), or as you say to fund specific features or changes you want. That also goes for sponsors: they should get value in return, and they do, like exposure and reputation in the dev community, a platform for their recruitment message, etc. To me, this dynamic seems quite different from ads, which are non-consensual and not tied to a direct value exchange.
Re:Preact: Countering the Perception That Open Source Must B... by arjie on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @04:10AM (#13865857)
Yeah. That makes sense.
Re:Preact: Countering the Perception That Open Source Must B... by patrickthebold on Monday March 13, 2017 @08:47PM (#13863991)
I wouldn't either, but I wish my employer would. I think you could buy a lot of employee/developer good will by donating to the open source projects that you use in your commercial projects.