Item — HN Reader

I empathize with the author. The root of the problem can be interpreted as the fact that a well maintained production-ready library is almost an engulfing charity service for the author. Ironically, economically, the optimal solution is for the masses benefitting from the library to return some of that benefit (perhaps in monetary form) to the author. But culturally this is not what free-software is about...

That's the irony and inefficiency of open-source software.

5 comments

> the optimal solution is for the masses benefitting from the library to return some of that benefit (perhaps in monetary form) to the author. But culturally this is not what free-software is about...

There's been quite a bit of improvement in that problem space. Crowd-sourcing is now considered by users a natural way to fund new work. So much so that in more user facing apps users are constantly asking about it if you don't have a campaign already. There are also micro-transaction solutions like gratipay (previously gittip) that are more open-ended and continuous which probably works better for lower layer projects and when developers don't want to fiddle with managing crowd-sourcing campaigns. Github could very easily own that space if they implemented something like "give x$ per month to every project I've starred".

  > could very easily own that space if they implemented 
  > something like "give x$ per month to every project 
  > I've starred"

That's exactly what BountySource is about.

Then, as mention downthread, there are Flattr, Gittip/Gratipay and Patreon.

> Github could very easily own that space if they implemented something like "give x$ per month to every project I've starred".

I would love this. Has this been discussed anywhere?

We do have gittip, flattr, etc ... this doesnt seem to have produced much success.

Patreon does seem to be developing a bit of a traction here too now. "I work on xyz, keep me funded so i can continue working on xqyz"

I think it's because it's not seamlessly integrated into Github and instead relies on external services that aren't intercompatible. If Github integrated/bought one of these services and made everything work smoothly with their billing system, I think many people would love to contribute. Maybe even make "corporate" contributions, although I don't know how that would work.

I'd much rather have a 'corporate' version where you could sell commercial licenses through github for $250-$350 to bigcorps and VC funded startups than a gittip where you can beg for 5 cent donations from developers.

Developers of open source software may be compensated by employment, contract, donations, sponsorship, and even social standing. Moreover, they benefit from having free access to the tools of a highly lucrative field. Everybody's got to get paid, and free software's “culture" hardly stands in the way.

Employment is not compensation.

Balance that though against the fact that OSS has been massively, mind-bogglingly successful, and all we're doing here is nitpicking various annoyances from the privileged vantage it has given us.

I don't see how money helps with the problem of not having time for a second job. You could try to use the money to pay someone else but that still means trying to find trusted maintainers.

I mean if many people paid and it was popular it would be your first job.

Not necessarily. The solution could well be to actually hand over the maintainer job. Grant someone commit rights, clearly say so as such, and off you go :)