I also think that is is effectively a pretty underhanded move to cement Github and monopolize open source development. It may not be intended to work this way, but if this campaign is successful, it will have this chilling effect. Once development funds go mostly through Github, the platform's influence over a project is greatly increased. Projects would have little choice but to comply with whatever ToS change Github would want to impose.

MS playing nice with open source starts to smell a bit like an attempt to ensnare and trap developers in an MS ecosystem. But this time around it is not about Windows as a target platform, but about dependencies on tools (VSCode), libraries (.NET Standard) and services (Github, Azure) provided by them.

Github's TOS already contains highly questionable language about a "license grant to us". I removed my code from Github when they added that, because I have no interest in risking giving Microsoft additional licenses to my software beyond those I give everyone.

The $5k matching would not even pay for a lawyer's time to review the current TOS and determine if that language in it actually does grant them an additional license.

Yeah, it's a shame the GitHub is starting to actually take advantage of their hosting monopoly, to the detriment of solutions like OpenCollective and Liberapay.

On the other hand, Git is distributed. Can't you just use GitHub as a mirror, and direct users elsewhere for actual development through the README?

Then again I didn't know about liberapay or OpenCollective up until now and I do open source for a living.

Or just include external donation links in the readme?

I assume you can't just do that since GitHub might offer to give donors regular activity updates.

> Meanwhile nonprofits and startups focused on solving the problem of open-source sustainability for everyone, not just Github customers, will suffer from this announcement.

Frankly, those startups/nonprofits haven't done a good enough job. If you want to be paid well in OSS it usually means you have to take on consulting work. If people were able to be paid well for working on OSS directly, there wouldn't be a problem for Github/MS to be solving here

> The subtext is pretty clear: “if you want to get paid, you better not leave Github!”

If you want to get paid as a video creator, you better not leave Youtube either

> If you want to get paid as a video creator, you better not leave Youtube either

That is of course Youtube's message to creators. But platform-neutral competitors like Patreon are keeping them in check. I hope the same thing happens with Github.

Replying to myself with a different perspective...

On the other hand, from Github’s point of view it just makes sense to do this. And in a way, it raises the bar for dedicated providers of open-source sponsorships. If they can’t provide something clearly better than Github’s built-in feature, then maybe their service just isn’t good enough.

Of course maybe they can’t compete properly unless Github plays fair and opens the required APIs to the competition.

Arguably, it's going to take the popularity of Github to make this a thing. Others have tried and failed (more or less) to establish an independent, first-class product to fund software developers. Some devs are getting some play on Patreon, but Patreon is more oriented toward areas other than FOSS.

Assuming this succeeds, it will be a function of the network effect. Github has a large enough base of users to sustain this kind of project.

On the other hand it provides a way to measure the performance of the people being sponsored. it's a good fit.