Re:Open source isn't a tip jar – it's time to charge for access
by some_random on Wednesday March 25, 2026 @10:18AM
(#47517672)
Some definitely are, but I think you're right to keep an eye out. I don't think that the thing open source needs is more foundations with compensated presidents and community managers and fundraising departments
Re:Open source isn't a tip jar – it's time to charge for access
by robocat on Wednesday March 25, 2026 @03:27PM
(#47522019)
We shamefully hear too much about the bad foundations (especially Mozilla and Wikimedia).
The good foundations remain working quietly in the shadows.
Re:Open source isn't a tip jar – it's time to charge for access
by graemep on Wednesday March 25, 2026 @10:37AM
(#47517922)
Much of the article is about getting people to pay for services around open source, specifically package registries. Big users paying to use a package registry hardly sounds unreasonable.
its not actually clear what the article is about, and it has the usual journalistic conflation of concepts (market cap is not the same thing as income!).
Re:Open source isn't a tip jar – it's time to charge for access
by thayne on Wednesday March 25, 2026 @11:11AM
(#47518429)
I don't expect to get paid for the open source work I do in my free time. But I would also really like it if I could work on open source software full time (or for the software I work on at my day job to be open source), but to do so I would need a source of income from somewhere.
If I wanted to get paid for the software I make in my free time, I would put a price on it.
If someone likes what I do personally, they can donate on my Patreon or kofi or whatever.
If I want my project to only be used for other free software, then I make it GPL or AGPL. That's it.
If someone uses my software and works for a company and needs support, we can talk about a support contract.