buy-me-a-coffee™

Jokes aside, I've never minded paying for things, and never could be bothered doing the open source / paid version model that the author spoke of.

I hope you succeed, of course. But since I have no good idea what your app is, except "a browser for developers" from the blog text, there is really no chance that I would ever search for this app, hear about it thru word of mouth, or eanything really that would make me end up testing your app.

Here's some other ways you could have tried to approach the situation:

- stop providing compiles, while selling access to the compiles on patreon or something. this way you can keep engagement from other developers and stay FOSS.

- offer commercial services around your app

Given that, their income seems about right. Only a tiny fraction of (potential) users are typically willing to pay anything.

A useful free and open source project garners GitHub stars and general recognition because it is useful, but also because it is free. The stars are the social compensation in this case. The free nature of the software is essential to that relationship.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-...

Just think about what it means to be top mod of a cities subreddit. You can trivially just delete conversations you don’t like.

Moderators have powers, use power and are often not at liberty to reveal all what went into their decisions. Moderation on any scale is however a team effort and is then subject to scrutiny, discussion and review. Power tripping moderators will be removed by the team and in communities with a sole moderator who is on a power trip it will not thrive.

Where is this mysterious subreddit, where such incredible, almost magical, things happen? Are we really talking about reddit here?

The subreddits I help moderate are one of the primary online gathering places for people in a niche community that I identify with.

The Internet is built on a lot of great people doing things for free. That doesn't have to be a bad thing if you are okay with it. But always make sure you feel good about what you are doing. If you get enjoyment or a sense of accomplishment (to quote EA) out of it then it's no worse than playing a video game or watching a tv show.

Larger boards are like organization with promotions. Abuse of power won‘t earn you one. There are steering structures. Sometime one has to adjust what moderators do and have a discussion on what happened. Occasionally one has to kick a moderator out.

If you don‘t know why people help strangers then this may be worth a thing to investigate for you.

However it makes you an especially visible member of that community, especially to its worst elements. The constant hostility and eventually the harrassment made me step down.

Now I watch other moderators go through the same motions. People are absolutely vile to them, all over a tiny internet forum.

The problem with mods is that some of them behave badly enough and go on power trips banning people for their own enjoyment and making tantrums, thus giving a bad rep to the whole category, including those who are actually good people with sane principles.

webarchive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20221110001855/https://kitze.io/...

The best part is when corporations get involved. A company will absolutely get something for free if it can, but if it has to pay, it'll pay a lot more than the absolute minimum, for PR reasons.

[0]: https://github.com/Fody/Home/blob/master/pages/licensing-pat...

Maybe I’m misunderstanding but does this mean that you cannot submit a bug report unless you donate to them?

You didn't pay? Well, that's just, like, your bug report, man...

Essentially it boils down to: you cared enough to submit a bug report? Then you should also care enough to donate.

That is true of any open source project.

And presumably the maintainers are not bound in any way to not re-open an especially good/important bug. It just makes makes non-patron support opt-in, instead of opt-out.

This is about managing expectations. And generally in the modern world, if you want someone to fix something for you, you pay them.

I'm sure this model works well for an established project like Fody that's already quite highly polished, but I'd be pretty sad if all (or even a significant subset) of open source adopted this model.

I'd definitely be interested to hear any counter-arguments to this though. Are there any avenues for individuals to contribute for free, if they aren't using it for profit?

  But it is MIT, can't I use it for free?

  Yes all projects are under MIT so the community backing honesty system can be ignored and Fody used for free.

  Do I need to be a Patron to contribute a Pull Request?

  Yes. Users must be a Patron to be a user of Fody. Contributing Pull Requests does not cancel this out. It may seem unfair to expect people both contribute PRs and also financially back this project. However it is important to remember the effort in reviewing and merging a PR is often similar to that of creating the PR. Also the project maintainers are committing to support that added code (feature or bug fix) for the life of the project. Pull Requests from non-Patrons, that are of significant value to the larger Fody user base, may justify the effort in reviewing and merging.

  Do I need to be a Patron to raise an issue?

  Yes. Users must be a Patron to be a user of Fody. As such when raising an issue (question, bug or feature request) and not a Patron, the issue may not be actively triaged, and eventually closed as stale. Issues from non-Patrons, that are bugs and are highly likely to affect the larger Fody user base, may justify the effort and be handled.

You realize that my dependency stack contains about 2500 dependencies right? If they all follow this model I’m looking at $90k/year just to contribute to a project.

Also, the business model is paying a subscription for the right to submit a pull request. Sure, you could wait until you are about to make the PR to buy the subscription, but that's a pain of its own.

Their point here is that this isn't a scalable business model. That's the assertion that started this whole comment thread.

Dependency management has gotten off the rails.

I think most businesses could afford it

That is amazing: when I was younger, sharing code was a goal, but absolutely nothing could prepare me for your world. Previously I have had the luck to be able to rewrite a lot from scratch, removing most runtime dependencies, although definitely not replacing build dependencies.

I imagine auditing for security, and managing dependency upgrades, must both be onerously expensive time sinks?

Modern devs don't care. They just install whatever, let it pull in 1000s of other packages, and continue on their merry way.

Meanwhile, a package you use today, can root your stuff tomorrow. That is, next update and bam! Package was sold to Evil Entity, or just the dev decides to rm your drive based upon geo location.

I get paid a lot to cleanup much of this mess, and while tools such as composer and node.js are useful, they are a horrible, horrible security risks.

If you use node or composer, be prepared for dozens of updates weekly. Each update risk laden, and feature and security fixes all mashed into one.

On a large project, you'd need multiple devs, just to audit all the change.

But as you will soon see, there will be all sorts of $reasons given, which all lack understanding of how traditional Linux distros handle updates, and boil down to "not my problem" or "someome else magically makes it safe!"

Have an unobvious copyright condition, get your code in thousands of projects, then spider the internet looking for companies that use your code, and charge them a $1000 “licensing fee”.

Or change the copyright in v1.1.2.2 and wait until everyone updates, and do the same thing.

> Modern devs don't care

I think the “modern” is superfluous and vaguely insulting: security isn’t/wasn’t cared about by most old-skool developers either!

The distribution of something already made is free. Supporting, understanding your issue, developing a fix and releasing it…all of that takes a real person’s time.

As a contractor, you learn very quickly that people will ask for anything if it doesn’t cost them anything. There are a lot of people happy to take advantage of you if you let them.

I like seeing a good model to get OSS devs paid.

Personally, if I submit a bug report or PR to an OSS project (which admittedly doesn't happen very often), it's almost always because I think the time I've spent investigating the bug/feature could benefit other users of the project.

For my use cases, it's generally much faster and easier (at least in the short term) to just fork a project and make whatever change I need locally, than to wait for it to go through review/merge/release in the original project.

Another commenter has pointed out that they make exceptions for certain types of contributions though, which I guess would help with this.

I think this may be a case where because you have a bunch of freedoms, you feel like you should have more.

I say this to re-assure you, not critisize you.

Open Source, and Free Software, are very clear on the 4 freedoms you enjoy. You can use, modify, distribute etc.

But it's not a 2-way street. You have no rights about what goes back into the project, the author is under no obligation to receive code contributions, no obligation to add features, fix bugs, or anything like that.

Of course lots of projects actively seek out contributions, but it's certainly not a requirement - nor (IMO) should it be.

Coversely open source has struggled to find viable financial models. This sounds like a success story and we should look long and hard at any successful financial model.

So, I don't think you should feel unsure. If you want to contribute then chip in some loot. If it means the project becomes sustainable you are the big winner.

But most of all, I think, be careful of adding "more freedoms" to your understanding of OS and FS, when they don't exist.

From a user point of view, project first is the only thing that matters. There is an instinctive resistance to anything that gets in the way. On the other hand users generally don't care about the project authors getting paid or not.

From the author side, getting paid is often a goal. If that means limiting the community to paying users, then so be it. From their perspective they are offering value, and they choose to spend their time focused on users who are paying.

In other words they need your money, not your code suggestions. They can code, but code doesn't pay rent.

As you say, others can choose to silo their changes, and not post them back, that is their right, and indeed likely happens anyway.

To take an exaggerated example, if I tried to use this model with any of my small OSS side projects, the only result would be that no one would contribute. This model means that the development of the project is going to be almost entirely driven by:

a) The original maintainers of the project (who will rightfully get bored of maintaining it at some point), and

b) The handful of companies that have financial interest in a certain bug/feature.

Again, that's probably fine for projects like Fody, but certainly not all of OSS.

> This process will depend on the issue quality, and the impact on the larger user base.

So, if I understand correctly, they won't automatically close issues if you aren't a subscriber, but the bar for the quality to keep it open is probably significantly higher.

I don't think that's a bad model. Although, I don' think it would scale well to every open source project having it's own subscription stream. But maybe if there were companies that maintained collections of projects?

That's essentially someone helping your paid customers to have better product for free.

I've been struggling with this issue with my project. It's a completed project, no scope creep, no bugs, just occasional update once every 6 months or so. The docs are complete and detailed so nobody needs extra help; no one will pay for support

At the same time, I know for a fact that if the project was buggy or had gaps in the documentation, nobody would use it; they would use an alternative solution from a big corporation.

The level of competition is so intense that there is no room for profit, no room for missing documentation and no room for bugs on my end. Competing products are backed by a big name brand tech corporations; so they can have bugs and gaps in the documentation and users will forgive them.

Branding is extremely powerful. Once people trust a brand name, they will ignore reality. If you don't have a brand name, you need to be 10x better to be perceived as the same quality.

It sounds to me like you have a solid project, and some number of users. With good docs. Which is great (we'll done.)

I'm assuming you want to monetize it? That seems to be the logical next step. Alas I'm not going to be very comforting with the next bit.

A) the time to think about monetization is when you start the project, not when it's done. Obviously a lot of projects get done for reasons other than money, and when you started you may have had other reasons. That's fine. But monetizing after-the-fact is a very difficult, dare I say "unsolved" problem.

B) this is going to sting, but most successful money-earning products have nothing to do with the code, beyond that it exists. A "business" requires more than "product" - a lot more. Marketing, sales, revenue, administration and so on. All of this is expensive, hence the need to have a business plan (ie, how does this thing make money?) before you start.

As developers we have a code-first mindset. But we try and compete with companies that have a business-first mindset. Companies are winning.

The fact that your project is complete, that it is solid is fantastic. Well done for that. However turning it into a business may be impossible, or expensive. That's OK. Celebrate what is is, don't pine for what isn't.

If nothing else you've learned the difference between a code project, and a business, and if you internalise that then you will have gained something of high value.

What is missing is recognition for those small projects without marketing or branding that are better and more bug-free than corporate projects.

Money is not needed, just recognition.

Big companies known for abandoning projects have a bad brand in that regard (although their brand might be good in other areas).

How is that a more ethical, straightforward, or profitable business model than just GPLing the project and offering proprietary licensing?

Releasing code under a permissive license, then calling people dishonest when they use it according to the license but not the authors’ desires, seems silly and inefficient.

Issues I can understand. But if I spend time grokking your code, fixing a bug and submitting a PR, and you reject it because you want me to pay you first, I'm dropping your software without a second thought.

You have a point. On the other hand, considerable part of maintainers burnout comes from arguing with well-meaning strangers that come with PRs that are (usually) useful, but don't fit the established codebase well. By only accepting PRs from members of a collective, the amount of drama is reduced.

If someone is going to just close these questions, then I will drop them as it’s not open source I want to be a part of.

I am okay with paying for software. not okay with paying to find out my feature request will get denied

The requirement to be a member of a collective is a filter. For popular projects it will likely do more good than bad. For niche projects, it might be worse than no filter.

They were explicitly talking about PR for a bug, not unwanted feature.

Yeah, sure, there is occasionally low quality bug fix that's problematic issue (bug should be fix but the code to fix it is garbage and nobody wants it) but I think that's rarer problem

Wouldn't you first check the license and contributor agreement before doing such a thing, even on random FLOSS projects?

Unless they are not disclosing their policy in the contributor agreement or the license, I don't really see a problem here.

BTW, the reason I mention sending PRs for bugs I encounter is that, when I do encounter a bug I don't immediately file a GH issue and make it the maintainers' problem. Instead I act upon it just like the maintainer would, by checking the source to figure out why the bug is happening, `git blame` etc to see what commit added that code, whether the issue I'm encountering was already identified or discussed when that code was committed, and so on. So as a result of doing these things I often end up either knowing my issue is by design and that I was doing something wrong, or end up having enough knowledge to be able to construct a bugfix myself.

Ha, it sounds like more work to replace a free piece of software with something else than to use your own patched version. Especially if you have to replace it with something inferior or proprietary. If there are better-maintained alternatives, why did you adopt it in the first place?

Pull requests take work to review and test. You shouldn't take that for granted and assume everything will be merged for free.

If you manage to review and test fixes faster than the original, or if you're willing to add features and maintain the code yourself, go and promote your fork!

Nonsense. You think signing yourself up to maintain a patched version of someone else's code for eternity is better than using someone else's code? You have to sign up for upstream CVEs, keep updating the upstream base and rebasing your patches on top.

>Especially if you have to replace it with something inferior or proprietary. If there are better-maintained alternatives, why did you adopt it in the first place?

False dichotomy.

>If you manage to review and test fixes faster than the original, or if you're willing to add features and maintain the code yourself, go and promote your fork!

I have my own work to do, not maintain forks of other people's code.

> It may seem unfair to expect people both contribute PRs and also financially back this project. However it is important to remember the effort in reviewing and merging a PR is often similar to that of creating the PR. Also the project maintainers are committing to support that added code (feature or bug fix) for the life of the project. Pull Requests from non-Patrons, that are of significant value to the larger Fody user base, may justify the effort in reviewing and merging.

Ultimately if you care enough about Fody to spend over a hundred dollars worth of your time contributing to it, you probably care enough about Fody to drop them three dollars.

Fine. But if my code is useful, and it ends up convincing more users to become Patrons, will I get any financial gratification from the Fody maintainers? Or are any profits from this contribution going solely to the maintainers?

In your average open source project, backing it is separate from using it and contributing code to it. My contribution would therefore benefit all people, including those who cannot pay. But the Fody maintainers consider them to be freeloaders and unwelcome people, so I have reservations about contributing and what the benefit from my contribution would be to others. I'm not working for free for a for-profit entity.

No, I really don't.

https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/pull/8500 - I was randomly reading keepassxc's manpage and spotted a curious option, spent some time spelunking through the code and history to discover that it was an outdated option, sent a PR.

https://github.com/python/typeshed/pull/8617 - I converted one of the scripts I use in my DE from shell to Python, saw that VSCode has this new fancy typing support for Python, quickly found a basic bug in the type definitions for the os module, tested a fix locally, sent a PR.

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/5250 - I found an issue with copy-paste on my phone, investigated it all the way through to the GTK stack, found the commits that introduced the issue, created a distro patch for it while discussing it with GTK upstream.

https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/merge_request... - I noticed that gnome-passwordsafe crashes some times, debugged it to discover that it was missing a dependency, sent a PR to the distro package to update the dependencies.

etc etc. I've made lots of fixes like these. I have no interest in paying for each and every one of them. The projects are all better off for fixes like mine and gatekeeping them on payment would've been nothing but their loss.

Also, to be clear, there is nothing special or unique about what I do. All large community projects where the users greatly outnumber the developers continue to work because of PRs like these from their users.

re: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33529742

(Had not heard of OpenCollective before yesterday so intrigued to see it come up twice)

Why not just have the public facing project be a fork of a private, access protected project where bug tracking and PRs are handled, that only patrons can access?

For some reason, saying "only patrons can access our development repo" seems perfectly reasonable, but saying "we'll close your bug report if you don't pay us" feels a bit grumpy.

From a business perspective that's basically a rounding error and nothing compared to what you can do with the conventional approach of selling consulting/support or, heaven forbid, your own proprietary solution.

So in what sense is this the best model? Has anyone used it to generate $100,000 in annual revenue, let alone say $10M+? More profitable model = more hiring developers to improve the software...!

If you want to start a business it can definitely have an open-source element to it, but that's just it. The open-source part is just one piece to a business and you better be aware of all the other pieces that need to be done in order to make money which aren't always engineering/programming related. EG: marketing, sales, consulting, fundraising, accounting, etc...

A common approach that people do now is create the open source offering then run it as a service where they can charge a premium for the support and leg work for hosting it. See: mongodb or elasticsearch or influxdb.

I haven't found many pure open source solutions where all they do is make the software better all day and ignore all the elements of business growth needed. Maybe the Linux foundation is a good counter example but I don't think there is a clear path to be paid for just contributing solely to open-source while neglecting other business elements.

This is a poor choice for a donation-driven project because it allows easy proprietization. It also does not protect from patents, tivoization and so on.

GPLv3 would be a better choice.

I don't know enough about the resulting system, but this sounds quite silly and contra-productive. Issues often hint at important flaws. If the community is not open (Ha!) to outsiders notifying them of important flaws, then that is a recipe for bad software. Some people might go there and start asking for features, instead of describing issues (although even that can be valuable input), but in my experience people are more often reporting bugs or asking how to do something, because it is not well described in the docs, or the docs are not as visible as they should be, or probably many other good reasons. Closing ones door to these valuable inputs can only result in worse software.

We are not talking about the same kind of issues or people. Aside from the strawman:

People creating an issue with all the detail are already investing time into reporting an aspect of your project. Immediately closing the issues is like giving them a middle finger, for investing their time, trying to help the project.

Sometimes, when I have a problem with some tool being buggy, I consider opening an issue, but sometimes I don't do it, because I know it would be time-consuming. However, when I open an issue, I usually try to provide all required information and maybe even an example to reproduce the issue. I invest time to make it easy for the maintainers to see the actual issue. If they closed that issue immediately and wasted my time like that, I would be very careful to ever invest time again into anything those people create.

FOSS is not about making money. In fact, it's antithetical to making money.

Value extraction is the province of closed source/user hostile software, by nature.

FOSS is great for doing "common good" code that everyone uses and many sides want to push forward, but not exactly easy to monetize if you're just a dev doing a thing.

The first name that came to your mind was Torvalds - hardly a random.

And that is the kernel. There are also companies like Red Hat and Canonical that make money through their work (more) in the userland. The people that they hire all make money from FOSS.

> When was the last time you chose a value above 1$

> you're a saint for choosing 2.5$

> OMFG THIS SHIRT IS 20$

For the record: the dollar sign comes before the number. I'll take the downvotes, I just can't stand it. I did read the article, and my heart goes out to the author.

> In the United States, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Pacific Island nations, and English-speaking Canada, the sign is written before the number ("$5"), even though the word is written or spoken after it ("five dollars", "cinco pesos"). In French-speaking Canada, exceptionally, the dollar symbol usually appears after the number, e.g., "5$".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_sign#Prefix_or_suffix

The linked article appears to be talking about U.S. dollars, and all evidence points to it being written in English, so I don't believe the regional usage is relevant.

It's hard to argue what the accepted usage will be in future generations, but using the dollar sign as a suffix does not appear to have become accepted by any institutions I'm aware of at the moment. Distinguishing a simple mistake from a visionary act of linguistic prophecy is beyond my capabilities.

If you can point me at a reference that makes a good case that the linked article is the accepted usage, I'd be obliged.

Regional: Philippines (personal experience) and many other countries write currency symbol following the number[1]

Generational: starting to show up in texting culture[2]

Having experience with languages evolving due to technology, including a few Filipino dialects, I've observed people adopting new conventions in spite of older generational mores is nothing new. Happens all the time. And as a person gets more experience with places that have different conventions, they typically let go of the provincial views that their learned way is the only way. The dollar sign is not the only chrrency.

Does a US dollar sign after a number look right to me? No, because my grammar teacher taught me differently. But my native French boss flipped it all the time and nothing of communication value was lost.

[0] https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/dollar-sign-before-or-aft...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_sign#Use

[2] texting and Text-to-Speech capture of written language.

Like when pedantics get angry about the misuse of "begging the question". If the majority of readers understand the phrase to mean "demands that we ask the question", then that's what it effectively means.

Later, I switched to creating books out of such tutorials. I gave them away for free during launch weeks (but readers could still pay if they wish) and this model worked so well that selling programming ebooks is now my primary source of income.

I was part of a team responsible for design and verification of DSP (digital signal processing) chips. ASIC part of the username refers to both "application-specific integrated circuit" and my college friend circle.

That said, as how things goes, there are "high value" projects as well as "low value" ones. If you want to make money out of your open source project, target those "high value" use cases might help. Some field just don't make a lot's of money even if you tried really hard.

Imagine a corporation spends money on an experiment where they purchase some luxury units of a fancy apartment building, and then rent was decided based on GitHub stars. You must collect a certain number of GitHub stars each month to satisfy rent or you get evicted. I wonder what kind of projects would come out of this.

No. But they'll give me the satisfaction my day job never will.

At my day job, the expectation are vague, I have no real power, the people who do can't answer my questions intelligently, and at the end it's like I did some miniscule part of a system that works just OK, but not up to my standards.

Has anyone else setup a simple gitweb server on a personal domain? If so, how did it turn out?

That all said, the author of SourceHut seems really principled in regards to what they're building. If I was going to bet money on one person not ending up like GitHub (and one platform not ending up like GitHub), I'd probably bet on them.

I kicked the wheels on it recently and was really impressed, though I'm unsure if I'll use it full time yet - for all it does well (kind of putting git back to what it should be), it does draw a line in the sand where I'm not sure I'd draw it. Something like Gitea might be another option since it can provide a familiar enough interface to drive-by contributors.

In truth, I wish Gitea had support for git-send-email similar to SourceHut. Feels like it'd be the best of both worlds.

There are no unique legal issues with regard to buying a domain name and writing and publishing source code on that domain. Using 'github.com' to host your source code does not give you more legal rights or protections. Copyright is copyright and a license is a license no matter where you publish it.

You should not be afraid to buy a domain, write source code and publish it there. It's not illegal to do that and you are not at more risk (although these big central social platforms would like for you to believe that).

Also, it doesn't have to be a "one or the other" thing, you can use both GitHub and self hosted for different things. That's what I do, GitHub is for work and things I want to be social, and my own hosting is for private code or code that I want to share in a "take it or leave it" kinda way without any of the social stuff.

I highly recommend hosting your own git/fossil/etc... system for yourself. Think of it like your own little place that you can setup exactly as you like.

I’m using a combination of cgit, Gitolite and Nginx. Once set up, it’s easy to use and rock solid. Gitolite configures through a Git repository. I’m not going back.

About 14 days ago, on a post about Gitea incorporating, I shared my writeup of the install in case you’re interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33341191

Regarding your GitHub account, I suggest to simply replace the content you moved with a notice to the new URL and then archiving the repo, making interaction impossible. Even if you’re looking at deleting everything, maybe keep the account itself around, it’s free and you may need it later.

I'd say go for it, but the discoverability aspect is important. I also follow friends and sometimes find interesting projects through their stars.

No other code search engine comes close anymore, unfortunately.

Do you know if there's a way to submit something to this to spider (e.g a Gitea instance)?

Don't you also want people to read the code you publish?

Not that GitHub is the only relevant venue, but still.

I'm assuming this question would be on-topic to this thread because it is essentially, "If someone DOES want to help you to pay your rent, or at least for a week's worth of coffee, where's the best place for that?"

https://github.com/fossjobs/fossjobs/wiki/resources

The github stars is quite useful to break into big tech as well. But the value of it probably stops there.

Open source sustainability is hard. I do think it comes down to the goals of the project lead and what level of financing it will require to sustain that. I have yet to see anything outside of company sponsorship or VC funding that makes it work. These individual donations don't scale. And even the odd $1k/month on patreon isn't enough. Let's face it, people working on open source are no less skilled than FANG employees, maybe even more so if producing code that's directly consumed. Open source should pay far better but I get the feeling it's still like free saas services on the internet. Each has a nuanced monetization path.

If your motivation for doing open source is money, you're doing it wrong. You'll be much better off just getting a job (and GitHub stars can help with that!).

We all know "build it and they will come" and "follow your passion and the money will follow" don't really work in the real world. You have to make something people want and convince those people it's in their best interest to pay you.

Open source can be a part of a larger strategy to earn a living (consulting, customizations/open core, relicensing, books/talks/seminars, etc), but yeah, GitHub stars aren't money.

[0] https://blog.senko.net/open-source-is-not-a-business-model

Open-source can be a great selling point and a growth driver, but it won't replace all the other parts of running a business, such as marketing, sales and most importantly, a functioning, profitable business model

If you want some advice, feel free to e-mail me

I will take a look at your open-source project and tell you how it can be turned into a business

> whether an OSS project lends itself to monetization is a really interesting and subtle question. rule of thumb, be at least two of these: big, boring (roughly correlates with "infrastructural" as @patio11 puts it), and lacking obvious substitutes

Many projects with high star counts fall into only one of those categories

[0]: https://twitter.com/colinhacks/status/1422222156340072456

https://discuss.python.org/t/official-list-of-core-developer...

Then he writes article, stating that you shouldn't be ashamed to ask for money. To whom it's directed? All OSS developers? Including developers of electron (one of his dependencies), which then has tens or hundreds of packages in its dependency tree? What would happen to his browser if they all wanted dollar/month for use?

If you want to code for money - do paid product. That's OK. No reason to build philosophy around being entitled to payment because you have github stars.

It is directed towards a person who would write some software with clear expectation of money and release it for free.

It is directed towards himself.

To people asking "why not open source?" (iirc have asked this at least once myself) on every non-open-source project released. The answer can simply boil down that the dev(s) are looking to money off it.

It's not a business model that usually works, but when it does, it's beautiful: you get to work on what you want, on your own terms and building something truly useful. You become a (tech) god, and you being paid for it. Respect and money. Isn't that what many of us dream about? That's the reason many people try to build something "cool" and publish it on GitHub... to see if they win the lottery. I have definitely tried, but perhaps I know beforehand that I have a 99.999% chance of failing.

You can greatly increase your chances if you also learn the business aspects of open-source, not just publishing code on GitHub

I learned the hard way, but you don't have to. Basic economics understanding goes a long way, along with business-oriented thinking and asking right questions at the beginning, eg. what extras can we offer that would save a lot of time/ generate more revenue. Once you can answer that, you're set to success

Open Source is not a business model, and that should be obvious. It's a distribution model, which has nothing to do with economics. Sure, it may affect a few variables but marketing and sales strategy are what matter more.

No, but it often seems like people argue as though it should be sufficient. There are lots of people who argue that things should be open sourced who in their arguments elide the point about how will people survive working on things for free.

It's a source code license.

"In a typical year the OpenSSL project receives about US$2000 in donations."

OpenSSL is one of the most known open source projects. It's like https://xkcd.com/2347/ There's little hope to achieve its level of success by doing open source. And even that project did not earn good money. So living from open source project just by writing code just is not a good idea. It's possible to run open source project as part of startup, I guess. But that's more about marketing than writing code.

https://www.openssl.org/support/contracts.html

Does that mean it can't help you get opportunities that can make you money? No of course not. It can look good on a CV, boost your name reputation online, get you a speaking gig or a spot at a conference, etc.

But it won't necessarily do that, and you shouldn't expect a return in 99.9% of cases. It's like expecting that your video game mods are going to become your career. In theory it could happen, but it 99% of cases it won't, and that's perfectly fine. It's something you do because you enjoy it.

The thing to note is that:

1. If you're sticking your code up on GitHub or whatever, you shouldn't really expect to make money from that alone. People will use it, and the majority of them won't do much more to support the project that give it a star.

2. If you do sell an open source product, other people can compete with you by selling the same code to their users/customers too.

IMO is about scratching one's own itch first. That said, I'm not good at running a business, and have little motivation to do so. I like what I do, I'm paid pretty well to do it. In the end, that means I'll probably never be a multi-millionaire. If I didn't work for others, I do have a couple projects I'd like to work on, biggest of which would be one that has been tread so many times before.

In the end, it's a mix. Some are completely altruistic with their free time. Others are paid to work on floss as it brings recognition to a corporation, or scratches their own itches, collectively, but doesn't bring direct revenue. And some do want to be Entreprenurial, those are the ones that should think twice about fully open sourcing their core product(s).

Open source the tools and adjacent products, don't necessarily open source your business.

But it is, in that, your business would not exist without it.

Open Source asks so little in return. Get trillions of lines of code for free, just give a few back please.

This is akin, to a trucking business paying gas tax. A large corp might save hundreds of billions on software cost, so why not release a million worth for free?

Yes, I get it. A single product, the entire revenue stream, you need cash, I get it.

But regardless, I had to make this point.

But in all seriousness, Open Source is a gift economy, and collectively produces better and more stable codebsses for the planet, and allows more innovation and wealth creation than closed, proprieraty systems.

Compare Wikipedia to Britannica.

Compare Science to Alchemy.

I'm not sure we all know that!

I’m working on two things that will change that:

nimbusws.com (this is the moonshot —- a managed service/hosting provider that gives back to F/OSS. Imagine what would happen if a company 1% as big as AWS gave 30% back to F/OSS projects)

awsmfoss.com - A newsletter that features a new F/OSS project every day. 60%+ of recurring subscriptions are donated to F/OSS projects — only 2 paid subscribers right now but it’s a start. Things will get REALLY exciting once I build traffic and start donating ad revenue (probably via EthicalAds)

If either of these sound interesting to you (criticism, encouragement, requests to invest, want to be the first hire) email me victor@(either domain above) and we’ll chat.

Instead, lifetime total of ~7 years is ~300 EUR, which includes donations to a NGO I forwarded, which account for most of it.

Most people will not pay voluntarily for something they can get for free. That’s just how it is.

The main idea of free culture is building on each other, not maximum extractive consumption. I believe the idea to be further ahead than our economic systems and accompanying incentives though.

In the case of this chap sounds like it never got to that point, he was doing all the work. Seems like his impression of open source is a trade where you have a developer who displays his wares and offers them for free, and praise and donations roll in. Rather than a powerful operating model allowing software to develop that you could never hope to develop alone. Time/effort ratio is much reduced for everyone involved.

Question its viability by all means. It's a progressive and generous idea. Sad that it's not even considered in the article.

I carefully avoid using proprietary software (like having not touched Mac/Windows for 15 years) and personally believe that all forms of IP should be in public domain by default. Each step by a man, however small or giant, should be a step for the mankind. Why should you continue contributing to open source projects: The amount of carbon footprint saved by opensource projects is tremendous. Think of how much resources are saved if the opensource solutions that we rely on today were closed and proprietary that the same software solutions had to be recreated from scratch at each instance of deployment rather than simply duplicated.

Open source can be a part of a business model, but cannot be the only foundation of a business model. It would amount to say 'self-serve won't pay for your rent' if you assume 'self-serve' is just putting your product out there, without marketing, or growth loops.

Some new OSS companies nailed the business model Plausible: https://plausible.io/blog/open-source-saas (never raised funds) Posthog: https://posthog.com/blog/open-source-business-models

[1] https://curl.se/

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=curl+donations&oq=curl+donat...

[3] https://curl.se/support.html

If you want money don't release it open source.

My sympathy for you is -100.

People who did things like writing homebrew makes you orders of magnitude more valuable than another dime-a-dozen leetcode warrior.

We have enough people who know how to do a damn BFS. We need people with good ideas and capabilities to execute with software. Lots of GitHub stars proves both

2. I wonder if web developers are more stingy than other developers...

3. "I obviously wanted to make a paid version of the app because the donations weren't exactly working out for me" <- Not obvious. The app should serve the public interest, as FOSS.

Btw if you wanna make money with opensource, check how FastAPI doing it.

This is a great analogy for open-source/commercial software in general. I still find myself naively thinking: "I could build this random project I just discovered!"