I Just Hit $100k/year On GitHub Sponsors(calebporzio.com)
calebporzio.com
I Just Hit $100k/year On GitHub Sponsors
https://calebporzio.com/i-just-hit-dollar-100000yr-on-github-sponsors-heres-how-i-did-it
509 comments
> Even though people have been interested in donating, I can't do that legally.
What you can do is to "sell" something in lieu of donations:
E.g. - To support me please buy this wallpaper image file of my project logo. Or one-day email support etc.
You can always add a note that Finland laws prevent you from accepting donation, and this is the only way you can accept money from patrons, and even provide a link to the law in question.
(Note that depending on the laws in your country you may have to register as a freelancer / small business and pay taxes. In most countries this will be free or near free, and you probably won't get enough money to reach the threshold aftwer which you have to pay taxes).
What you can do is to "sell" something in lieu of donations:
E.g. - To support me please buy this wallpaper image file of my project logo. Or one-day email support etc.
You can always add a note that Finland laws prevent you from accepting donation, and this is the only way you can accept money from patrons, and even provide a link to the law in question.
(Note that depending on the laws in your country you may have to register as a freelancer / small business and pay taxes. In most countries this will be free or near free, and you probably won't get enough money to reach the threshold aftwer which you have to pay taxes).
Sure and this is kind of what I do. I have a sole proprietorship and sell stickers and in the future some minor features on the site. Of course it has the overhead of setting up the business and all the accounting/tax stuff (unless you use a service for that which takes ~5 % of your revenue).
But can't you sell your digital artwork without setting up business? Seems better than stickers (also, no shipping!).
[*] Digital artwork = project logo in png format, free to use however they please. You can license the publicly-available logo with any minimally-restrictive license (e.g. CC-BY); this should still count that "you gave them additional rights, in exchange for payment".
[*] Digital artwork = project logo in png format, free to use however they please. You can license the publicly-available logo with any minimally-restrictive license (e.g. CC-BY); this should still count that "you gave them additional rights, in exchange for payment".
tax reporting most likely
I mean, yes you need to report revenues, but... do you need a company for that? Do e.g. all Finnish photographers on Shutterstock have a company, in order to receive payments?
Yes, if you sell things (or electronic things), in any meaningful amount (no one will care for 200$ per year though), you have to set up a company or a sole proprietorship. It is like this in most western countries. The activity that you are doing in that case is called business, and of course you need to have a company or a similar business structure (like sole proprietorship) to do business.
Whether all people do it or not is another question, but that is what is required by the law.
Whether all people do it or not is another question, but that is what is required by the law.
I think the confusion in this thread is that (in most of Western Europe) you automatically become a business (or even company) by the sole act of doing "business" (enterprise with the purpose of earning money), and once you cross some (small) threshold you have to register in some capacity. That can be a ~$20 bureaucratic act, compared to the ~$500 act of setting up a proper company. But of course at that point it varies wildly by country.
IANAL, but I have done this a few times. I'm pretty sure you do not need a company to make money as a self-employed person in the USA. Not in terms of federal taxes anyway.
What you might need a company for is to pay sales taxes you charge for physical goods, or get insurance appropriate for your line of work. That's likely to be state-by-state. You just get the convenience of an EIN by registering and some additional legal protections by being a distinct entity (i.e. I could sell the company or assign IP to it or hire employees).
I have certainly gotten contractor income to me personally that I just had to account for. In the USA for small businesses you'd have to send the same documentation, so it doesn't even save paperwork. As a sole proprietorship I get the same tax documents from my clients as I would if I were operating directly under my name.
Edit: Also, if this were true in the USA, it implies that all those Uber drivers each have a sole-proprietorship set up. I'm pretty sure that companies can hire contractors as individuals without them becoming businesses.
What you might need a company for is to pay sales taxes you charge for physical goods, or get insurance appropriate for your line of work. That's likely to be state-by-state. You just get the convenience of an EIN by registering and some additional legal protections by being a distinct entity (i.e. I could sell the company or assign IP to it or hire employees).
I have certainly gotten contractor income to me personally that I just had to account for. In the USA for small businesses you'd have to send the same documentation, so it doesn't even save paperwork. As a sole proprietorship I get the same tax documents from my clients as I would if I were operating directly under my name.
Edit: Also, if this were true in the USA, it implies that all those Uber drivers each have a sole-proprietorship set up. I'm pretty sure that companies can hire contractors as individuals without them becoming businesses.
You also need a company so you don't lose your house and life's savings if you're sued, too. That's what freelancers primarily create companies for. IRS doesn't really let you take advantage of any tax loopholes unless you employ a bunch of other people.
I don't understand characterizing compliance with tax law as using "loopholes." What are you referring to?
The topic is obviously enormous and more complicated than "big business bad", but it wouldn't be a loophole if it wasn't legal. Defining only illegal things as loopholes is not a great line in the sand, it's kind of a tautology that loopholes aren't illegal. I would expect that the specific definition varies a lot by person because democracy. One person's corrupt loophole is another person's tax incentive, but either way the loophole is legal.
What specifically the parent was referring to I'm not sure, but that would be why it is consistent to describe a company as both "in compliance with tax law" and also as "using loopholes". If they weren't in compliance with tax law they'd just be breaking the law. No one is accusing the companies of breaking the law, they're accusing the tax system of being biased and corrupt.
What specifically the parent was referring to I'm not sure, but that would be why it is consistent to describe a company as both "in compliance with tax law" and also as "using loopholes". If they weren't in compliance with tax law they'd just be breaking the law. No one is accusing the companies of breaking the law, they're accusing the tax system of being biased and corrupt.
Do you play board games?
Which games don't have edge cases, loopholes, exploits?
Of the games which can be "gamed", are they more or less complex than any given tax code?
Which games don't have edge cases, loopholes, exploits?
Of the games which can be "gamed", are they more or less complex than any given tax code?
Thank you for explaining this. As an American, I was unaware.
In the US, you're already a sole proprietorship without any registration. Of course, if you're actually doing business, you probably want the protections of an LLC, which requires registration and fees. But you can accept uncompensated gifts as an individual, and you can accept business income as a sole proprietor, all without registering for anything in particular. You are, as always, required to file accurate taxes, including estimated withholding.
> the protections of an LLC
Won't protect one guy or a small team in case of legal disputes, it's called piercing the corporate veil. I wonder if the EU has something similar.
Won't protect one guy or a small team in case of legal disputes, it's called piercing the corporate veil. I wonder if the EU has something similar.
Number of employees or members isn’t relevant. Types of behavior performed is. It is worth talking to a lawyer about this if you have enough revenue this matters.
You can take donations but AFAIK business licenses are required in every state in the US whether you provide product, service or something online. If you take donations then by law you have to declare that as income.
There is no generally “business license” in Arkansas. Some municipalities require them (but have very limited means of enforcing that requirement), and some specific occupations require licensure, but unless you fall under one of those narrow categories you only have to file taxes.
I've always found it deliciously ironic that the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution both dealt with interstate commerce and set up the federal government as superseding the states in this regard... but then corporations are a state level entity not federal, complete with 50 states worth of regulations.
>It is like this in most western countries.
No it isn't... In Canada, you can happily accept money from people and just stick it in the "other income" box on your tax return, where it'll get income-taxed appropriately.
If you're trying to do business deductions or want to pay business taxes instead, yes you need a business. If you're trying to set up a physical location, yes you need a business license from your city. But if you don't care about the pennies and your work is digital there's absolutely no requirement.
No it isn't... In Canada, you can happily accept money from people and just stick it in the "other income" box on your tax return, where it'll get income-taxed appropriately.
If you're trying to do business deductions or want to pay business taxes instead, yes you need a business. If you're trying to set up a physical location, yes you need a business license from your city. But if you don't care about the pennies and your work is digital there's absolutely no requirement.
"It is like this in most western countries" can still apply even if Canada is an exception.
Generally speaking the same is true of “gifts”, though. You don’t have to report a gift as income if it’s reasonable, but drawing that line is where things get... complicated. Then you have to call in specialists like tax lawyers, etc.
In the US, gifts of up to $15k are untaxed.
Are you sure that you’re not operating as a sole proprietor under that set of facts? If I sell something with the intention of making a profit using my own name as the seller, bam, I’m a sole proprietor. If I file a doing-business-as (DBA) form with my city, I can sell under another name and still be a sole proprietor.
> It is like this in most western countries.
This is not the case in the USA. There is no general federal legal requirement to register a business or obtain a business license in order to sell things. However, there are specific industries for which business licenses are required (at any of the federal, state and local levels) and forming an LLC might help personal assets if you are sued.
This is not the case in the USA. There is no general federal legal requirement to register a business or obtain a business license in order to sell things. However, there are specific industries for which business licenses are required (at any of the federal, state and local levels) and forming an LLC might help personal assets if you are sued.
It's different here - for revenue from intellectual property rights in particular you do not need to be a business (you do need accounting & to submit an annual declaration to the revenue service; but you can do that as a regular person, there's no need to register a business).
Untrue, you can work with a freelancer tax card. You can't bill with VAT and deduct that from your costs as an entrepreneur if you do so, but you don't need to register anything in order to work as a freelancer.
In Australia you don’t need to set anything up. If annual turnover is over $75,000 you’ll need to register for GST which requires an ABN, and if you want a .com.au domain name you’ll need an ABN, and other entities you deal with may want you to have an ABN, but for the sorts of things in question here you won’t need an ABN.
In the US, AFAICT "sole proprietorship" is just the label for a natural person doing business; the extent of the registration can just be DBA ("doing business as") so that you can cash checks in a name other than you own.
Is it illegal if you sell an item/service/upgrade for a clearly absurd price?
The obvious workaround here is to paywall some tiny feature with choose-your-own-price, or perhaps offer something akin to Reddit Gold. I presume the law already thought of that?
The obvious workaround here is to paywall some tiny feature with choose-your-own-price, or perhaps offer something akin to Reddit Gold. I presume the law already thought of that?
Surely there's a difference between ”Buy this PNG file for €200” and “Buy it for €10,000,000”
Lots of brands sell things with prices only justifiable by the branding and associated prestige.
The authors tactic of paywalling things behind a "donation" seems legally much more dubious.
The authors tactic of paywalling things behind a "donation" seems legally much more dubious.
It wouldn't be a donation, it would be a premium account that has access to extra features. I just don't want those features to make the free users feel second class.
Could you share a link to your project? I'm curious what it is.
I commented on it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23616644
Yeah, we have an active person in the Sandstorm community from Finland who maintains Wekan[1]. I didn't previously know the specifics, but he's had to tell a lot of people "sorry, I can't accept donations" too.
It's so much easier in the US. If you're an individual it's going to be taxable income, but there's no up-front paperwork to do (for that matter, you don't have to "set up" a sole proprietorship here either -- that's just what the tax code calls "some rando doing business by themself"). I've done contract work for years, have a bit of my income coming in through GitHub sponsors now.
Now, if we could only get health care covered for folks who don't have an employer...
---
> I host a free project myself and I've had to set up a business (sole proprietorship) and sell things in order to get money for server costs.
What's your side project? Speaking of Sandstorm, I'm wondering if it might be relevant; dealing with the problem of developers needing to monetize things in order to cover hosting costs was one of the motivations for the project:
https://sandstorm.io/news/2014-07-21-open-source-web-apps-re...
[1]: https://github.com/wekan/wekan/
It's so much easier in the US. If you're an individual it's going to be taxable income, but there's no up-front paperwork to do (for that matter, you don't have to "set up" a sole proprietorship here either -- that's just what the tax code calls "some rando doing business by themself"). I've done contract work for years, have a bit of my income coming in through GitHub sponsors now.
Now, if we could only get health care covered for folks who don't have an employer...
---
> I host a free project myself and I've had to set up a business (sole proprietorship) and sell things in order to get money for server costs.
What's your side project? Speaking of Sandstorm, I'm wondering if it might be relevant; dealing with the problem of developers needing to monetize things in order to cover hosting costs was one of the motivations for the project:
https://sandstorm.io/news/2014-07-21-open-source-web-apps-re...
[1]: https://github.com/wekan/wekan/
If you haven't done so already, you REALLY should look into setting up an LLC for contract work in the US. Legally separating your business assets from your personal assets is very important. It doesn't cost a ton -- varies by state and whether you involve a lawyer or not. It will make your taxes a bit more complicated, but consider that the cost of insurance against somebody trying to sue you and take your house.
Literally just buying an insurance policy is significantly less complicated and roughly the same cost, IME. Professional liability, errors and omissions, etc. cost me ~$1k a year when I was doing consulting for $1mm in coverage. My LLC taxed as an S-corp cost more than that just in tax prep services.
A single member LLC provides some benefits but those benefits often require a lawyer to invoke (i.e. you're getting sued, gotta file things and work the legal system). If you have insurance you just tell the insurance company and they hire the lawyers.
A single member LLC provides some benefits but those benefits often require a lawyer to invoke (i.e. you're getting sued, gotta file things and work the legal system). If you have insurance you just tell the insurance company and they hire the lawyers.
Perhaps the US is different, but here in the UK, I reckon that 95% of software developers will never go to court in their lifetime, and the remaining ones that do will settle for small amounts (ie. Refunding the customer the cost of the contract). Multi-million pound judgements against individuals are pretty much unheard of...
As a freelancer in Sweden I can't even imagine how big I would have to fuck up for a customer to sue me for anything beyond what they had already paid me.
Imagine you are paid $100 to build a website to sell some new widget to be delivered on November 1st just in time for the holiday season. The company also spends $1000 on a one-day internet marketing campaign that's around the launch.
Then there's a technical issue at launch and orders are being rejected left and right.
They could be out basically the whole value of the marketing campaign which is 10x your salary. You might owe them compensation for that, unless of course you got paid through an LLC and only have the $100 in your account.
Then there's a technical issue at launch and orders are being rejected left and right.
They could be out basically the whole value of the marketing campaign which is 10x your salary. You might owe them compensation for that, unless of course you got paid through an LLC and only have the $100 in your account.
That's why you have contracts/ToS, so it's clear what is and isn't your responsibility.
And if you have any sense, the contract expressly limits your total liabilities to the client to at most what they have already paid you.
(ps. With some careful lawyer drafting to exempt things which can't be limited in that way (negligence etc.), while carefully wording the exemption so any part voided doesn't take the whole limitation with it.)
(ps. With some careful lawyer drafting to exempt things which can't be limited in that way (negligence etc.), while carefully wording the exemption so any part voided doesn't take the whole limitation with it.)
[deleted]
In the US lawsuits typically open with the closest thing a lawyer can imagine to infinity dollars of damages, and then you have to have your lawyer work it down.
E&O insurance is in absolutely no way a replacement for incorporation. In most cases if you need the former, you need the latter also, but there are many uninsurable cases where you want the protection of an LLC anyway.
I guess never really analyzed it in depth and just had both. What does E&O miss that a single member LLC protects against (and vice versa)?
LLC[1] mostly does what it says on the tin: it limits the liability to the company, not yourself or other owners. Without this any debt or judgement against your company can consume potentially most of your net worth (subject to bankrupcy, etc.). In practice for a freelancer this means you can limit your liability pretty strongly, if you are passing everything through as payroll the asset value of your company can be quite small, and it's value without you nil.
On the other hand various types of corporate insurance cover you for particular risks. Depending where and how you operate you may have to have them by statute or by practicality. So you may have to carry liability insurance by law if you have an office where people visit, or a contract may require that you hold E&O insurance up to a certain amount. In a way the latter is actually your customer protecting themselves from your use of a LLC. Without it, in the case of a settlement against you, you could easily just turn around and say "fine, the corporate account has $5 in it, here you go" and then fold up the company leaving them with no recourse. With E&O coverage for certain types of errors, they know they can get covered in a settlement up to a certain amount.
E&O covers you for particular failures in providing the service you are contract for. Say you were an electrician and did some work on a new building. They sue you claiming your work wasn't to code and caused them $100k in trouble with the city - you disagree. E&O insurance covers your court costs and potentially your settlement if it goes that way. It isn't going to cover you if you get sued for libel because of things you said about them, etc.
This is also why, for example, it may be hard/impossible to get underwriters for some software consulting. Because there are not professional standards groups that are well recognized and because potential damages from software can be difficult to asses (your script change cost us $10mm in AWS fees) insurance companies may not want anything to do with it.
So that leads to a third prong of protections which you didn't mention, which is you need to pay attention to your contract terms (and set them as much as you can). Depending on your situation this can range from easy to impossible, but can have a huge impact. For example, I've successfully added clauses to limit all liability to actual spend on previous 6 mo.
[1] this is hugely dependent on jurisdiction, particularly with single member variants.
On the other hand various types of corporate insurance cover you for particular risks. Depending where and how you operate you may have to have them by statute or by practicality. So you may have to carry liability insurance by law if you have an office where people visit, or a contract may require that you hold E&O insurance up to a certain amount. In a way the latter is actually your customer protecting themselves from your use of a LLC. Without it, in the case of a settlement against you, you could easily just turn around and say "fine, the corporate account has $5 in it, here you go" and then fold up the company leaving them with no recourse. With E&O coverage for certain types of errors, they know they can get covered in a settlement up to a certain amount.
E&O covers you for particular failures in providing the service you are contract for. Say you were an electrician and did some work on a new building. They sue you claiming your work wasn't to code and caused them $100k in trouble with the city - you disagree. E&O insurance covers your court costs and potentially your settlement if it goes that way. It isn't going to cover you if you get sued for libel because of things you said about them, etc.
This is also why, for example, it may be hard/impossible to get underwriters for some software consulting. Because there are not professional standards groups that are well recognized and because potential damages from software can be difficult to asses (your script change cost us $10mm in AWS fees) insurance companies may not want anything to do with it.
So that leads to a third prong of protections which you didn't mention, which is you need to pay attention to your contract terms (and set them as much as you can). Depending on your situation this can range from easy to impossible, but can have a huge impact. For example, I've successfully added clauses to limit all liability to actual spend on previous 6 mo.
[1] this is hugely dependent on jurisdiction, particularly with single member variants.
Oh contract terms! I completely forgot, you’re right. I’m actually pretty happy with my final retainer contract. It limited damages to the last three months of retainer spend.
I seem to be in the most expensive state in the country for that. That's rent & food for a month.
But it's a one-time fee, so you're probably still right in general, but for the moment I'm mostly coasting on savings & sponsorships, focusing on the stuff I care about while I have the breathing room. I might consider being a bit more organized if/when I ramp up business again and am considering looking for new clients.
But it's a one-time fee, so you're probably still right in general, but for the moment I'm mostly coasting on savings & sponsorships, focusing on the stuff I care about while I have the breathing room. I might consider being a bit more organized if/when I ramp up business again and am considering looking for new clients.
My side project is a programming statistics service: https://codestats.net/
It's mainly for fun and I want to keep it free, but of course I wouldn't mind if there was some money coming in to pay for the costs and motivate to work on it more. Currently I'm selling stickers and in the future I will implement some kind of paid accounts which will have some minor features that free accounts don't have – the dilemma is to keep it balanced so that free users don't feel second class.
It's mainly for fun and I want to keep it free, but of course I wouldn't mind if there was some money coming in to pay for the costs and motivate to work on it more. Currently I'm selling stickers and in the future I will implement some kind of paid accounts which will have some minor features that free accounts don't have – the dilemma is to keep it balanced so that free users don't feel second class.
> It's so much easier in the US. If you're an individual it's going to be taxable income, but there's no up-front paperwork to do
In the UK it's even simpler if you are recieving less than £1,000 a year in donations or similar. HMRC have basically decided taxing people's side hustles would costs more than it returned. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-free-allowances-on-property-...
In the UK it's even simpler if you are recieving less than £1,000 a year in donations or similar. HMRC have basically decided taxing people's side hustles would costs more than it returned. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-free-allowances-on-property-...
"For each donated dollar, I will create and send you 100 random bytes that you can use in your cryptographic applications."
$7 = 700 random bytes
$15 = 1500 random bytes + 500 bytes free!
$99 = lifetime* subscription for 25k random bytes per year
* your lifetime or my lifetime, whichever terminates earlier
$7 = 700 random bytes
$15 = 1500 random bytes + 500 bytes free!
$99 = lifetime* subscription for 25k random bytes per year
* your lifetime or my lifetime, whichever terminates earlier
Do you have any collectible limited edition bytes?
Those would be the special one-of-a-kind bytes that we log to ensure no two people get the same bytes twice. Bonus: the logs are numbered, so we can validate those bytes. Downside: we’ll have to ask for a monthly donation to cover storing the bytes and bandwidth ;-)
[deleted]
How about The Original: 00000000
High entropy edition: with RSA padding, signed by famous cryptographers.
I'd buy the $99 option and use it as the trigger for my dead mans switch :).
But do you warrant that they are actually random?
Truth in advertising and all that.
Truth in advertising and all that.
Sell licenses. People can buy a licensed version of your project. It's exactly the same as the free version, but it comes with a different licence.txt (which allows the purchaser to say that they supported you).
If you're not allowed to sell copyright licenses in Finland, then your whole software business is screwed.
If you're not allowed to sell copyright licenses in Finland, then your whole software business is screwed.
I don't even see the point. If there's no enforcement of this law, why even bother with the illusion of legality? Just accept donations - and likely no one will ever bother coming after you.
Not sure you understand the Scandinavian/Nordic psyche.
My non-Scandinavian girlfriend never understood why people pay for the bus there if they never get checked. Or why people bother to leave money in a little box at an unmanned coffee/waffle/etc stand in the middle of nowhere. But most do as it is the right thing to do, guilt free.
And if there is a slight chance the tax authorities might contact him the guilt/embarrassment is worse than any token fine.
My non-Scandinavian girlfriend never understood why people pay for the bus there if they never get checked. Or why people bother to leave money in a little box at an unmanned coffee/waffle/etc stand in the middle of nowhere. But most do as it is the right thing to do, guilt free.
And if there is a slight chance the tax authorities might contact him the guilt/embarrassment is worse than any token fine.
This is different. In those examples, someone is getting screwed. In this case it's just a pointless bureaucracy that can be circumvented.
They aren't the same from an ethical perspective.
They aren't the same from an ethical perspective.
I’m on the other side of a Nordic relationship and some times I have similar thoughts coming from a third world country. My partner’s mentality seem like utopia to me. I would love to understand it a bit better, do you have any references or reading material that discuss this psyche?
Not from a Nordic country, but with some similar-minded tendencies.
You understand that you enjoy living in a system that you can trust. You understand that being able to trust the system means that the system has to trust you. You value a working system more than a petty dollar or some other short-sighted piece of self-interest, because you get more benefit from having the system work in your favor than taking a little for yourself but eroding/ruining the system in the same go. If most people do the right thing, the system works and everyone benefits.
Simple as that! It's the opposite of the tragedy of the commons.
In non-utopian countries, you have to make an advance deposit into the system and may never do enough to make it universally trusted. People may never stop jaywalking, or taking a free coffee/waffle/etc. from the unmanned stand, or cheating your taxes with family income and business expenses. But I'm doing well for myself, so what am I really losing by doing the right thing? Life already put me ahead. I'd rather contribute a small part to a working system I can trust, than to grab another small pie just for myself.
You understand that you enjoy living in a system that you can trust. You understand that being able to trust the system means that the system has to trust you. You value a working system more than a petty dollar or some other short-sighted piece of self-interest, because you get more benefit from having the system work in your favor than taking a little for yourself but eroding/ruining the system in the same go. If most people do the right thing, the system works and everyone benefits.
Simple as that! It's the opposite of the tragedy of the commons.
In non-utopian countries, you have to make an advance deposit into the system and may never do enough to make it universally trusted. People may never stop jaywalking, or taking a free coffee/waffle/etc. from the unmanned stand, or cheating your taxes with family income and business expenses. But I'm doing well for myself, so what am I really losing by doing the right thing? Life already put me ahead. I'd rather contribute a small part to a working system I can trust, than to grab another small pie just for myself.
Well, if they reach the 100k mark like the article’s author, the risk of a tax audit may start to keep them up at night
It's true that at my scale it would likely never be noticed. Personally I just don't like the risk even if small. But when looking at OP's case, that would absolutely be noticed by the tax authorities and they'd have to explain the nature of the income.
>I don't even see the point. If there's no enforcement of this law, why even bother with the illusion of legality? Just accept donations - and likely no one will ever bother coming after you.
This only works if you never piss anyone off, have no enemies and the government only stands to look bad from going after you.
Obviously accepting donations in an illegal manner is a stupidly low hanging fruit for someone who wants to screw you over. Sure you'd probably only have to pay back taxes (or whatever) in the end but it's a massive hassle and better to just keep it on the down low.
This only works if you never piss anyone off, have no enemies and the government only stands to look bad from going after you.
Obviously accepting donations in an illegal manner is a stupidly low hanging fruit for someone who wants to screw you over. Sure you'd probably only have to pay back taxes (or whatever) in the end but it's a massive hassle and better to just keep it on the down low.
This assumes the government would even care if someone reports it to them.
...which they probably wouldn't.
...which they probably wouldn't.
Well, GGP said that accepting donations costs money. So perhaps selling licenses is more profitable?
Also, if you receive more than a few hundred dollars, perhaps the Finnish IRS will start noticing.
Also, if you receive more than a few hundred dollars, perhaps the Finnish IRS will start noticing.
We call that the WinRAR model.
The exact same thing is for India. Individuals can't get non-profit status. So you have to sell something. A software dev friend tried donate button with cta "Get exclusive support" for few months. But international audience didn't quite get it.
I have seen some gamers in India asking for donations and giving direct account details(UPI[1] details), but I am very cautious against this. I am just waiting(selfishly) for Income Tax dept to serve notice to someone and get this clarified via court case.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface
I have seen some gamers in India asking for donations and giving direct account details(UPI[1] details), but I am very cautious against this. I am just waiting(selfishly) for Income Tax dept to serve notice to someone and get this clarified via court case.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface
Accepting sponsorships like this is not non-profit. You still have to report it as income and pay taxes on it.
True donations are not taxable in the UK, because they are not part of a trade.
In other words, they are not given in exchange for something; the something is freely given without the donation.
Of course there is the question of whether something is truly a donation. But charities have to deal with that question, so there are formulaic approaches to it, and advisors. Sometimes the wording that accompanies a donation must be written carefully, to clarify what is and is not expected for it, because donations can be directed to a purpose, which isn't (apparently) the same as paying for something.
I assume it's similar elsewhere?
In other words, they are not given in exchange for something; the something is freely given without the donation.
Of course there is the question of whether something is truly a donation. But charities have to deal with that question, so there are formulaic approaches to it, and advisors. Sometimes the wording that accompanies a donation must be written carefully, to clarify what is and is not expected for it, because donations can be directed to a purpose, which isn't (apparently) the same as paying for something.
I assume it's similar elsewhere?
"Tax-deductible donation" is a subset of "donations", at least in the US. I can "donate" (syn: "give") money to anyone. I don't have to do anything special for that, and in theory they should report it on their (personal) taxes as income. If I'm giving it to a registered charity (non-profit), I can deduct it as a donation on my taxes. Maybe that's part of why this piece generated so much discussion: for some, just the word "donation" carries certain connotations that others might not ascribe.
I wonder; if you had a list of donors, then you could be selling the privilege of getting your name on the list.
I'm actually curious if some type of phrasing-related arbitrage is possible. Like:
Like my work?
DONATE
* all donations automatically receive (whatever)What if donors are actually purchasing a spot on the contributions page? It would be like purchasing a classified ad in the paper or a normal internet ad. Their name or specific message would be displayed on the 'donations' page for a set duration. You might have to put some clarifying language on the page as well.
I mean, you can "sell" anything. For $15/mo, I will say "thank you, [your name]" out loud to my cat. For $20/mo, I will give a thumbs-up to the tree in my front yard and think about what a great person you are. Is the government really in a position to tell me that those things aren't "worth" what I'm "charging"?
Can you not do a "pay what you want" product? Here is this software which is open source. You can pay me what you want to for it- here's the link.
The software (Or service in your case?) is the product.
The software (Or service in your case?) is the product.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. I wouldn't risk it myself.
Currently our air carrier Finnair is under investigation because they offered a climate compensation payment for flights. They say the payment went towards biofuel and other compensation methods but it's being investigated if it was considered a donation.[1]
[1] https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/business/17392-finnair-discards...
Currently our air carrier Finnair is under investigation because they offered a climate compensation payment for flights. They say the payment went towards biofuel and other compensation methods but it's being investigated if it was considered a donation.[1]
[1] https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/business/17392-finnair-discards...
You can create that and I think in 99% percent of cases you can also collect github donations without problems in Finland. If it were to go in court I think it could be easily explained as non-donation because there is work performed.
Also OPs explanation is not so straightforward, the money collection act is being contested all the time and many succeed in collecting money here.
Also OPs explanation is not so straightforward, the money collection act is being contested all the time and many succeed in collecting money here.
Can you link sources to contesting it? I'm interested in learning what kind of things are approved.
Basically you state that it isnt donation but payment for gig. Which would apply to github "donations" as well, they arent donations but payment for the open source work.
Finnish peoples problem isnt the laws, but the fact that they are total pussies when it comes intrepreting the law.
Finnish peoples problem isnt the laws, but the fact that they are total pussies when it comes intrepreting the law.
Sure if you set up your sponsor tiers like "$5/mo: x minutes of bugfixing for you" then it would be just sales. I think if you just accept money and say "thanks" in return with a vague promise of working on open source, that's a pretty grey area and I'd rather not have to explain it to the authorities in the first place. :P
I think you’re thinking in the right direction. One could do some dual licensing, with a (slightly) different license. Eg BSD by default, and sponsors get the MIT license.
Seems like there would be a clear value exchange here.
Seems like there would be a clear value exchange here.
IANAL (anywhere), but when you sponsor someone you're listed as a sponsor. I'd say that social credit has some intrinsic value.
Interestingly, while you can't be donated money in Finland people can certainly and rather freely give gifts to another person. It's even tax-free as long as gifts from one person remain under 4000€ for any consecutive three years.
Surely gettings lots of monetary gifts from foreign friends would probably not hold during a tax audit (they'd accuse you of trying to evade taxes unless you could provide a plausible reason why all these people would be sending you gifts) but it's an interesting counter-example nevertheless.
Surely gettings lots of monetary gifts from foreign friends would probably not hold during a tax audit (they'd accuse you of trying to evade taxes unless you could provide a plausible reason why all these people would be sending you gifts) but it's an interesting counter-example nevertheless.
I just commented above, but isn't this actually what's happening? I mean, isn't giving something of value to someone, and expecting nothing in return, the textbook definition of a "gift"? This feels more and more like something is getting lost in translation.
The restriction isn't on receiving donations. It's on soliciting donations from the public.
(Not saying one country is better than the other but) in the US, there are no taxes on gifts until you gift more than $11 million in your life. If you go above $15,000 in any calendar year, you do have to notify the government, though.
> It's even tax-free as long as gifts from one person remain under 4000€ for any consecutive three years.
Not something to be impressed by; gifts are tax free in the US under $15,000 per one year.
Not something to be impressed by; gifts are tax free in the US under $15,000 per one year.
As a fellow Finn who is also on Github sponsors, you would be correct if this would constitute as collecting money. Earnings through Github sponsors go through Stripe and have to be declared as income and is taxed as such. You have to fill out your tax information to get an North American tax card and after that, it's basically identical to income you get from abroad.
In Finland, a new law was made to allow small-scale money collection up to EUR 10000, but it has also other restrictions, so it may not help you: https://intermin.fi/en/police/fundraising
Cool I didn't know that. It does say that it's not for business purposes or accumulating "wealth" of a person but it's nice to learn.
There is an exchange here. Software is being provided in exchange for a discretionary payment.
That is a very interesting interpretation of the law.
Another would be to regard such a construct as income. Report your income. Pay your taxes and be happy.
It only becomes "gray" areas when people think it is possible to have non-taxed revenue streams.
Another would be to regard such a construct as income. Report your income. Pay your taxes and be happy.
It only becomes "gray" areas when people think it is possible to have non-taxed revenue streams.
> It only becomes "gray" areas when people think it is possible to have non-taxed revenue streams.
This may be true in some countries, but it's definitively not an universal truth. Some business models are not allowed even if you pay taxes on the income. This is what the user is describing, and reading the (English translation) of the text of the Act, I'd be worried too.
This may be true in some countries, but it's definitively not an universal truth. Some business models are not allowed even if you pay taxes on the income. This is what the user is describing, and reading the (English translation) of the text of the Act, I'd be worried too.
What is the ostensible purpose behind that law? Seems like something you could get changed (with considerable effort) considering there appear to be no strong interests who benefit from it.
People pretending to be charities and scamming donations. The idea would be that all legitimate charities are registered and have a permit. If they don't, it's likely a scam.
I think it's originally to prevent scammers. Like if someone was collecting money door-to-door and then said that people willingly donated to them (which would be true). I think it's just to add oversight into those kind of situations and to prevent scam money collection campaigns.
Write to your member of parliament and explain why you think it's terrible you can't just add these sort of extra earnings to your tax assessment at the end of the year. It's certainly possible in the UK to operate in this way but also more tax efficient once you get past say £40000 to run a limited company.
Yo send this thread to your representatives. They may help change the law. They're leaving GDP on the table
This is exactly the kind of problems cryptocurrency was made to address. I would just say each donation comes with a postcard so you are giving them something in return. If my government ever tries to do something like this, I will leave it up to them to figure out that I’m collecting donations.
How common are bootstrapped (i.e. non-wealthy, non VC-funded) entrepreneurs in Finland?
From what I can tell this has nothing to do with that. Anything that could be considered commerce or an exchange for goods (even abstract goods) falls outside of it. This only applies to donations; it's just that the internet has created this in-between category where "donations" are made to someone working on a product that can't really be "sold" in the traditional way, and the law doesn't have a proper carve-out for those cases.
It was just a simple question.
Common. It is a capitalist, moderately wealthy country.
Couldn't you circumvent that by selling a really expensive bowl of fish soup or something like that? Or just say that you prostituted yourself?
That you would need to open a business is probably something most countries require though.
That you would need to open a business is probably something most countries require though.
You can accept a gift. It's also possible for someone to give a grant. But I'm not sure how they would work out in case of open source. I know that people write books using a grant.
The thing about gifts is that the person wishing to give one needs to ask proactively how to do it and then you can give e.g. your bank account details to that person only. You cannot put your bank account or instructions how to ask publicly available. Years ago we asked about this from the authorities when I was in a non-profit and this was the answer.
In the states non-profit means a company that is not for profit. It doesn't mean you can't pay yourself a wage that is inline for the duties and title you have.
What a joke. Here in the US, as long as you don't give over $15,000 per year to a given individual, you don't have any tax or reporting obligations.
That's a strange law. I assume it serves some purpose (or must have served one when it was introduced, at least). What's the argument for it?
The US has a lot of charity scams and dubious NPOs collecting cash. There’s news about fraudulent GoFundMe’s pretty regularly, for example.
Finland is probably too far the opposite direction, but the whole sector could use a lot more scrutiny over here.
Finland is probably too far the opposite direction, but the whole sector could use a lot more scrutiny over here.
It seems like a lot of charities in the US are just a way for the wealthy to avoid paying taxes or for the founders to become wealthy
Yes, it’s not uncommon to have do-nothing NPOs that associate themselves with a noble cause and then spend most of their funds on one or two people’s salaries and perks. This is why apps like Guidestar and Charity Navigator were invented.
The IRS doesn’t seem to give these orgs much scrutiny unless they’re egregiously bad or become a big news story.
The IRS doesn’t seem to give these orgs much scrutiny unless they’re egregiously bad or become a big news story.
The IRS has been co-opted by the very wealthy. The IRS spends way more resources auditing the very poor than the very wealthy
Grifters calling or walking door-to-door and asking for money, for some made-up charity or organization. Especially targeting older people.
It's extremely frowned upon to begin with, but at least the laws make it illegal.
(Not that it necessarily hinders those that really want to scam someone. Some of these BS "organizations" just contract their work to foreign call-centers. Every year a lot of young European people are lured to some low-cost country in southern Europe, where they'll have to work for some call-center at below minimum wage - and these centers will sometimes work for anyone...)
It's extremely frowned upon to begin with, but at least the laws make it illegal.
(Not that it necessarily hinders those that really want to scam someone. Some of these BS "organizations" just contract their work to foreign call-centers. Every year a lot of young European people are lured to some low-cost country in southern Europe, where they'll have to work for some call-center at below minimum wage - and these centers will sometimes work for anyone...)
What was the justification behind this law? Was it meant as some kind of consumer protection?
Write a haiku and make that the "reward" part of your project?
I'll sell you a pixel for $10
[deleted]
That is draconian
qazpot(2)
The more individual developer stories I look into on Sponsors or Patreon or wherever, the more I see a recurring pattern. The vast majority of developers don't make any significant money. The outliers that do use the platform as a general-purpose payment processor. They take donations, but they also sell things. The line between isn't terribly clear.
The platforms help style all the payments as "donations" or "sponsorships" or "patronage". That avoids harshing the project vibe with overtly commercial overtones that turn off the financially immature and preternaturally entitled. But in reality, they're often really payments for products, services, access, and so on. Some people do simply donate, usually small dollars, and don't receive or care about "perks". Others buy the perks on offer specifically, as a simple exchange. Somewhere in between, people and companies may be inspired by donation-like feelings, but use the benefits to get their payments approved and expensed.
It's hard to draw any broad conclusion from outliers. But it all points to there being strange value in muddying the concept of paying developers with a lot of ambiguity, on both the buy side and the sell side. It's like one of those statues that looks like one thing from one angle, and something completely different from another.
The platforms help style all the payments as "donations" or "sponsorships" or "patronage". That avoids harshing the project vibe with overtly commercial overtones that turn off the financially immature and preternaturally entitled. But in reality, they're often really payments for products, services, access, and so on. Some people do simply donate, usually small dollars, and don't receive or care about "perks". Others buy the perks on offer specifically, as a simple exchange. Somewhere in between, people and companies may be inspired by donation-like feelings, but use the benefits to get their payments approved and expensed.
It's hard to draw any broad conclusion from outliers. But it all points to there being strange value in muddying the concept of paying developers with a lot of ambiguity, on both the buy side and the sell side. It's like one of those statues that looks like one thing from one angle, and something completely different from another.
In class and race struggles it's not uncommon to see someone worry aloud about token individuals who are "allowed" to succeed out of proportion to their peers. It gives the rabble hope, which keeps them sedate. But the success rate barely exceeds attrition at the top of the pyramid.
I don't think I personally will ever know if this is just an accident of the system (being happily exploited), planned, or a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B.
Enough notable success stories satisfies the Availability heuristic in your brain, but that often tricks you into thinking things are quite different than they actually are.
I don't think I personally will ever know if this is just an accident of the system (being happily exploited), planned, or a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B.
Enough notable success stories satisfies the Availability heuristic in your brain, but that often tricks you into thinking things are quite different than they actually are.
We see power-law distributions everywhere, notably the 80-20 Pareto rule. They are the rule with uniform distributions being the rare exceptions. The claim of a hidden puppeteer running this gigantic con that occasionally allows success and precisely mixes column A with column B such that the rabble attack one another only and never the mastermind pulling the strings is truly extraordinary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
I agree there's a lottery-like dynamic in open software funding. The winner-outliers are well known, broadly remarked, and frequently advertised. The long, long tail of financial busts gets downplayed, though we all know it's there.
Same for startups, by the by.
I don't think it's necessary to personalize the rules, odds, and constraints that reinforce these outcomes. We could find individuals who see how it works and like it. But I haven't seen evidence to show they add up to any kind of conscious conspiracy. I'm more concerned about the smaller players who aren't winning and haven't seen how the game is skewed.
Same for startups, by the by.
I don't think it's necessary to personalize the rules, odds, and constraints that reinforce these outcomes. We could find individuals who see how it works and like it. But I haven't seen evidence to show they add up to any kind of conscious conspiracy. I'm more concerned about the smaller players who aren't winning and haven't seen how the game is skewed.
>Now, people watching the screencasts will naturally encounter these “private” screencasts and if they like the free ones, they will sponsor me (at $14/mo.) to get access.
Why are we calling this 'sponsoring'? It just factually is selling a product to people for a specific amount. Sponsoring/donating is more like people giving money for something that would otherwise be free. Otherwise Microsoft could also require a 500 usd 'sponsorship or donation' for a Surface Go. And requiring it monthly is just plain subscription service payment.
Why are we calling this 'sponsoring'? It just factually is selling a product to people for a specific amount. Sponsoring/donating is more like people giving money for something that would otherwise be free. Otherwise Microsoft could also require a 500 usd 'sponsorship or donation' for a Surface Go. And requiring it monthly is just plain subscription service payment.
It is collecting money with an expectation of additional content in the future. So it isn't just a purchase. A subscription is closer, but sponsor adds the implication that your sponsorship is what allows the content creator to keep doing it.
Also, one of the dictionary definitions for sponsor is: "provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out)."
So it seems accurate enough of a term to me.
Also, one of the dictionary definitions for sponsor is: "provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out)."
So it seems accurate enough of a term to me.
"provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out)."
So does a subscription or purchase. So not sure what you are trying to imply with this.
He gives access to stuff if you pay him money, with a promise of more stuff in the future. This just sounds like an subscription to me.
While I do agree there is a disconnect between open source dev payment and business, I don't think mislabeling a subscription as a donation does anyone any good.
So does a subscription or purchase. So not sure what you are trying to imply with this.
He gives access to stuff if you pay him money, with a promise of more stuff in the future. This just sounds like an subscription to me.
While I do agree there is a disconnect between open source dev payment and business, I don't think mislabeling a subscription as a donation does anyone any good.
we can argue about semantics but it's not really productive, imo.
He implies nothing, he states that sponsor definition covers the OP use case. Having more than one word to describe the same thing is not surprising.
You imply that your definition of sponsor exclude OP use case and there is mislabeling.
The interesting point is the revenue issue in open-source business. This guy solved it for him and present for all how he did it, with no lies and no hypocrisy.
That someone got hung up on a correct word usage shed an interesting light on where this disconnect between open source dev payment and money really lies.
He implies nothing, he states that sponsor definition covers the OP use case. Having more than one word to describe the same thing is not surprising.
You imply that your definition of sponsor exclude OP use case and there is mislabeling.
The interesting point is the revenue issue in open-source business. This guy solved it for him and present for all how he did it, with no lies and no hypocrisy.
That someone got hung up on a correct word usage shed an interesting light on where this disconnect between open source dev payment and money really lies.
That was my reaction as well.
He's selling courses using a freemium model.
The software is the inbound content.
He's selling courses using a freemium model.
The software is the inbound content.
[deleted]
I think sponsoring invokes a feeling of supporting an individual person, or small group. It says this product in of itself may not be worth $X/mo but the feeling of the buyer enabling a creator to continue their passion is what compels the buyer to pay.
Spot on. It's like they are discovering capitalism again from first principles and trying to cover it up with brand new coat of paint / terminology.
sponsorship != donation. That's why github chose the former. Part of the copy in the sponsor dashboard is even:
> You can set sponsor tiers with different prices and rewards
> You can set sponsor tiers with different prices and rewards
Joel Spolsky does a good job of explaining what's actually happening here in his old "Strategy Letter V" from 2002 [1].
Caleb hasn't discovered some secret means of convincing people to pay for OSS they can download for free. What he's done is create a commodity (the open source package) and then once it's popular, make a tidy profit off its complimentary product (training videos).
Unfortunately it's still true that people generally won't pay for software they can download for free, but if you're willing to dip into some other types of work (e.g. consulting, creating training videos) then you can make more than enough profit top keep going indefinitely.
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
Caleb hasn't discovered some secret means of convincing people to pay for OSS they can download for free. What he's done is create a commodity (the open source package) and then once it's popular, make a tidy profit off its complimentary product (training videos).
Unfortunately it's still true that people generally won't pay for software they can download for free, but if you're willing to dip into some other types of work (e.g. consulting, creating training videos) then you can make more than enough profit top keep going indefinitely.
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
I wonder if you could just pick a big open source product with a large community and sell complimentary product products for it... Or that you first must be a celebrity? Or at least have enough social proof.
Risk with that approach is that your complimentary products could become irrelevant or redundant as the open source project evolves e.g. training material could become outdated as functionality changes, a product that relies on some API could get broken by API changes etc. By owning both the open source project & the complimentary product, you can avoid nasty surprises (and be ahead of any competitors in the "complimentary product" space when you make changes in the open source project)
I can't say I'm an expert on RedHad's business model, but I think this is what they've done with Linux. Mysql did something similar as well, but in their case they built mysql from scratch themselves rather than attaching to an existing product.
I hate sponsorware concept OP is proposing. It seems to work for him but it’s opposite to the spirit of open source. His idea is that keep code secret until you find N sponsors. Further, he will hide important tutorials if you are not sponsor. I would hate to use this kind of open source project.
Here is more viable freelancing:
- create framework/library that everyone needs
- for feature requests/bug fixes, prioritize sponsors
- do office hours for sponsors
- invite sponsors/allow them to vote for future road map
- offer consulting credit to sponsors
Here is more viable freelancing:
- create framework/library that everyone needs
- for feature requests/bug fixes, prioritize sponsors
- do office hours for sponsors
- invite sponsors/allow them to vote for future road map
- offer consulting credit to sponsors
What you're proposing requires him to sell his time instead of his work (which was already a portion of his time). It is impossible to scale that type of consulting work to multiple clients because you'll always be limited by your available time.
The spirit of open source isn't so sacred. In most cases it is hundreds or thousands of businesses benefiting financially from the work you've done.
The spirit of open source isn't so sacred. In most cases it is hundreds or thousands of businesses benefiting financially from the work you've done.
exactly, and that's a good thing. scaling means basically exploiting of other people's labour.
> Here is more viable freelancing
Implying his approach is not viable is weird, given that what he's doing is demonstrably working (at least at the moment). He's making free software and then selling subscriptions to training content, which is where he seems to be making something like 80% of his revenue. It's like Railscast, Laracast, Egghead.io (originally just angular tutorials!) etc.
The main difference to railscast, egghead.io etc. is that he's using Github as a payment processor & to manage subscriptions.
Implying his approach is not viable is weird, given that what he's doing is demonstrably working (at least at the moment). He's making free software and then selling subscriptions to training content, which is where he seems to be making something like 80% of his revenue. It's like Railscast, Laracast, Egghead.io (originally just angular tutorials!) etc.
The main difference to railscast, egghead.io etc. is that he's using Github as a payment processor & to manage subscriptions.
Well from what I've seen the Sponsorware concept is the ONLY monetization strategy I like from both a developer and a user. What alternative is better?
- Consulting, usually means the project is too complex and hard to use without help. Changes to make the project easier to configure are often not even considered...
- Donations, not sustainable for the developer (no users need to pay anything).
- Open-core, one of the worst strategies, as the developer's motivations are almost completely opposed to the open-source community. The developer wants people to upgrade to premium, so the premium features are always prioritised over community features, and people can't extend the software themselves...
- Hosting, not a bad strategy, but is slowly becoming less relevant as deployment of services is becoming increasingly easy.
- Consulting, usually means the project is too complex and hard to use without help. Changes to make the project easier to configure are often not even considered...
- Donations, not sustainable for the developer (no users need to pay anything).
- Open-core, one of the worst strategies, as the developer's motivations are almost completely opposed to the open-source community. The developer wants people to upgrade to premium, so the premium features are always prioritised over community features, and people can't extend the software themselves...
- Hosting, not a bad strategy, but is slowly becoming less relevant as deployment of services is becoming increasingly easy.
That sounds more like straight up working to me. This way he's building features he's interested in and allowing some people to get a sneak peek, if you will.
I'm not sure how sponsorware is the opposite to the spirit of open source but your proposal would essentially allow someone to buy out the product roadmap which seems worse.
I'm not sure how sponsorware is the opposite to the spirit of open source but your proposal would essentially allow someone to buy out the product roadmap which seems worse.
You are free to hate and free not to use such a product.
The truth is that many developers have taken the high road, and done the right thing, and they have been unable to make a living out of their open source efforts.
I hate that the ecosystem is so weak the OP has to resort to this model, but I have nothing but sympathy for the OP.
The truth is that many developers have taken the high road, and done the right thing, and they have been unable to make a living out of their open source efforts.
I hate that the ecosystem is so weak the OP has to resort to this model, but I have nothing but sympathy for the OP.
+1, Parent comment comes off as devs owe others anything labeled “open source” but OP is not selling open source — it’s software that’s been paid for, made public.
The whole entitlement that devs and companies have around open source drives me crazy.
The whole entitlement that devs and companies have around open source drives me crazy.
Genuine question time: assuming that someone has created the "framework/library that everyone needs"[1], at what price points should that person be setting their sponsorship tiers, along the lines that you suggest, on GHSponsors? Perhaps something like:
- Thanks/gratitude: $5
- Prioritise issues raised by sponsors: $25
- Sponsor influence/vote on project roadmap: $300
- 1hr/month video-call/consult with sponsor's company/team[2]: $600
- Add sponsor's logo on the project's home page[2] (say for 1 year) - in a fun and engaging way, of course: $1000
[1] - I've done this, except for the bit where I convince everyone that they really, really need to use the library.
[2] - I've not yet seen a way on GHSponsors to limit the number of people who can sponsor a given tier. Which puts me off offering this sort of tier as over-subscription could quickly steal all my time and ruin my project's home page.
- Thanks/gratitude: $5
- Prioritise issues raised by sponsors: $25
- Sponsor influence/vote on project roadmap: $300
- 1hr/month video-call/consult with sponsor's company/team[2]: $600
- Add sponsor's logo on the project's home page[2] (say for 1 year) - in a fun and engaging way, of course: $1000
[1] - I've done this, except for the bit where I convince everyone that they really, really need to use the library.
[2] - I've not yet seen a way on GHSponsors to limit the number of people who can sponsor a given tier. Which puts me off offering this sort of tier as over-subscription could quickly steal all my time and ruin my project's home page.
Nice idea, but most people want open source for free, and never contribute back, and so we only get code that big companies want, and not individual driven things that often have better ethics behind them, instead of the companies ulterior motive.
Do you have an example of that actually working for someone?
I have an example of my npm install logs being spammed by someone trying.
While the term open-source is a bit more vague, I'd argue that the software he's developing fits squarely into the term "free" (as in speech), as the FSF defines it. The source code is available to modify and fork, even if you must pay to access it -- which is allowed while still considering it "Free". I've always wondered how the FSF thought that would work exactly, since it seems weird to have something be forkable to only a select group of people, but this makes a lot of sense; it will be open sourced to everyone after enough people pay for it.
I'd also argue that this is one of the most ethical ways to pay developers fairly for their work, even if the author wasn't able to make that much money from it. The product the developer creates is FOSS, available to everyone after some time, and they still get paid for it (bonus; they're paid by the open source community for their work, rather than from one person/corporation that dictates their salary).
I'd also argue that this is one of the most ethical ways to pay developers fairly for their work, even if the author wasn't able to make that much money from it. The product the developer creates is FOSS, available to everyone after some time, and they still get paid for it (bonus; they're paid by the open source community for their work, rather than from one person/corporation that dictates their salary).
Practically it is closed-source and then once financial targets get satisfied (sponsors, sale, maintenance contracts) one open-sources it. Thus is how a lot of enterprise software gets opened.
If it is trully open-source from start then anyone can freely dostribute the copy outside of the elite group.
If it is trully open-source from start then anyone can freely dostribute the copy outside of the elite group.
There is no singular "spirit of open source". Ask a hundred developers, get a hundred answers.
That's how my sponsorship tiers are set up actually :)
https://github.com/sponsors/arximboldi
It doesn't seem to be working great though, at least on the page. I end up making a living through ad-hoc client work, which sometimes supports the open-source side as well.
It doesn't seem to be working great though, at least on the page. I end up making a living through ad-hoc client work, which sometimes supports the open-source side as well.
> - for feature requests/bug fixes, prioritize sponsors
Isn't this equivalent to "keep code secret until someone sponsors you?" Except in his case, the work is done before you're sponsored, and in yours, the work is done after?
Isn't this equivalent to "keep code secret until someone sponsors you?" Except in his case, the work is done before you're sponsored, and in yours, the work is done after?
No. Not at all.
Because there is always a infinite amount of work to do.
Usually you do the most rewarding work.
With no money involved, then it is usually the most fun part.
And with money, it is what other people want. That can be the same, but does not need to.
Because there is always a infinite amount of work to do.
Usually you do the most rewarding work.
With no money involved, then it is usually the most fun part.
And with money, it is what other people want. That can be the same, but does not need to.
His idea has better incentives. He doesn't have to insert himself or make consulting necessary, he has an incentive to make the running costs as low as possible, and the manuals as good as possible. Among other things.
These are great ideas thanks.
Comparing $90k as a W2 employee doesn't really compare to making $112k as a LLC or contractor. Taxes, health insurance, retirement...
On the other hand, his amounts are going up, so I'm interested to see how high they will go, and what it will consistently level out at.
On the other hand, his amounts are going up, so I'm interested to see how high they will go, and what it will consistently level out at.
If you set the entity up correctly and work with a decent accountant, your $112k turns into more like $40k taxable, and if you are married, that $40k drops to $20k @ 10% + $20k @ 12% or ~ $4500 in taxes.
Aha. And now you understand why we don’t have universal healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, and so much cash in the hands of the wealthy that interest rates are near zero.
I would like to point out that Universal Healthcare would be funded by a separate tax and probably would not come out of Income Taxes.
This is sorta already how it is in the US. While we obviously don't have universal healthcare, or a national pension, we do have Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. These are separate than income tax. On your pay stub, it's the FICA ("Federal Insurance Contributions Act") deduction. There is also a smaller separate supplemental Medicare-specific tax. Federal income tax is a separate deduction.
Wait till COBRA runs out, friend.
I believe this is how the UK does it as well. You pay income tax, then you pay your NHS fee.
We pay a "national insurance" tax in addition to income tax, but this is mainly to cover the state pension from what I understand and maternity allowance etc.
As I understand it, NHS comes from general taxation.
Obviously there is no actual "fee" to use the NHS at the point of use - it is all free apart from prescriptions which are the same price regardless of what you get (and you might get it for free anyway depending on your circumstances)
As I understand it, NHS comes from general taxation.
Obviously there is no actual "fee" to use the NHS at the point of use - it is all free apart from prescriptions which are the same price regardless of what you get (and you might get it for free anyway depending on your circumstances)
Prescriptions are also completely free in Scotland. Same for Wales and Northern Ireland, as far as I know.
the NHS is mostly funded from general taxation
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-...
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-...
I.e. so it can be properly regressive, right?
The US Government is projected to make 3.8T for 2021.
Isn't that enough to fund the programs you are speaking of?
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-ta...
Isn't that enough to fund the programs you are speaking of?
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-ta...
[deleted]
This is news to me so I'm just saying, if you wrote about this in more detail, I'd read the shit out of it.
I think what he's generally saying: aggressively deduct expenses used to support your business. This would include rent, home office, computers, phones to conduct business, business meetings, travel, health insurance, retirement, etc. Then the member and spouse would draw low salaries putting you in low income bracket and thus low taxation. The 2017 TCJA further reduced taxation for business owners via the Qualified Business Income (QBI 20%) deduction.
I suspect a large part of it is a SEP IRA which lets you pack away like 57k in a tax advantaged account. Business deductions are almost like icing on the cake vs that.
Deductions sound good to people who haven't actually run a business or thought very hard about it. You have to be purchasing stuff to deduct. As a software engineer why not just not buy stuff since all you really need is a computer. Then you keep 100% of that money rather than 10%.
Some outliers are home office and utilities and things like that.
Some outliers are home office and utilities and things like that.
The attraction of deductions for sole proprietors working from home is not buying new stuff, it is the opportunity to pay for stuff you would buy anyway with pre-tax dollars.
> draw low salaries
The IRS has rules (typically unenforced) regarding this. You are supposed to draw a salary that matches your job in your local area. So if you are based in Tinyton, Flyover State, you could probably get away with paying yourself $30k/yr, but in NYC (where I'm based), my accountant told me $70/hr is basically as low as I can safely go. So I do $70/hr and then $14/hr in my retirement account.
The $70 turns into ~$78 after all the employer taxes add into it, and I take home only $52 after employee side of taxes are taken out of it.
The IRS has rules (typically unenforced) regarding this. You are supposed to draw a salary that matches your job in your local area. So if you are based in Tinyton, Flyover State, you could probably get away with paying yourself $30k/yr, but in NYC (where I'm based), my accountant told me $70/hr is basically as low as I can safely go. So I do $70/hr and then $14/hr in my retirement account.
The $70 turns into ~$78 after all the employer taxes add into it, and I take home only $52 after employee side of taxes are taken out of it.
> safely
What's the risk - audit? And if so, what's the risk from the audit? A fine for tax fraud? Jail time?
What's the risk - audit? And if so, what's the risk from the audit? A fine for tax fraud? Jail time?
In lots of countries you definitely can't deduct rent, non-business travel, health insurance, or retirement. And home office only if you have a dedicated room for it.
I'm freelancing currently myself, and available deductions are honestly miniscule and well-defined.
I'm freelancing currently myself, and available deductions are honestly miniscule and well-defined.
IRS Publication 334: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p334/index.html
It's actually a very interesting little booklet.
It's actually a very interesting little booklet.
This. In US there are many benefits of owning a business. Cars are an expense, home office is an expense, etc. When you work for someone else you don't have this flexibility but your risk is lower and you are not worried about finding clients.
Its difficult to deduct cars as an expense--that is one of many expenses that the IRS will scrutinize.
The broader point still remains, for a business (a 1099 is considered a sole-proprietorship) generally net income is taxed, and as a W2, your taxes are witheld per pay period.
The broader point still remains, for a business (a 1099 is considered a sole-proprietorship) generally net income is taxed, and as a W2, your taxes are witheld per pay period.
Same in the UK, and I believe in other countries, it's not strictly a US thing.
What do you mean set up correctly? And how does 112K turn into 40K taxable?
I'm not an accountant or tax lawyer, so this isn't advise, only my back of the envelope calculation, not even using things like the 172 deduction, or business expenses, but my estimate was actually way off almost double.
Gross Income: $112k
- SEP IRA 25%: -$28k
- Owner Health Insurance: -$15k
- 199-A Deduction (20%): -$12k
Total business income for taxes: $47k
- Married Filing Jointly Deduction: -$24k
- Total taxable income: $23k
Tax on $23k (10% of first $20k, 12% of next $3k): $2360
Gross Income: $112k
- SEP IRA 25%: -$28k
- Owner Health Insurance: -$15k
- 199-A Deduction (20%): -$12k
Total business income for taxes: $47k
- Married Filing Jointly Deduction: -$24k
- Total taxable income: $23k
Tax on $23k (10% of first $20k, 12% of next $3k): $2360
With S-corps you do have to actually pay yourself wages, thus incurring some FICA taxes. Rule of thumb I believe is 50% of net income, up to ~$100k. Given that, you can then also contribute (and deduct) as the company up to 25% of salary towards 401k
Another gem many people don't know about is "Increasing Research Activities", for certain industries this essentially translates to 5-10% of your total payroll becoming a credit. That's huge.
Another gem many people don't know about is "Increasing Research Activities", for certain industries this essentially translates to 5-10% of your total payroll becoming a credit. That's huge.
I was doing my estimation based on an LLC, since most people don't set up S-Corps. I do operate through as an S-Corp, and I pay myself ~60%, and put 20% into my SEP-IRA.
> Owner Health Insurance: -$15k
WTF? Who pays $15k PER YEAR for health insurance? That's nuts. In most countries USD$15k would pay for healthcare for 2 or 3 people for their entire lives.
WTF? Who pays $15k PER YEAR for health insurance? That's nuts. In most countries USD$15k would pay for healthcare for 2 or 3 people for their entire lives.
$15k is a cheap family policy in most of the country. My wife and I pay $24k/year for the cheapest silver option with a low deductible. My wife gets pneumonia and bronchitis almost annually, and every few years gets hospitalized. On top of that, she has 5 medications she takes for her asthma and allergies that without insurance would add up to almost $1000/mo, so sure we could go uninsured and save close to $12k/year, but the second she gets pneumonia and ends up in urgent care or the ER, we've lost all of the savings. And that is just her, I have to get my blood drawn quarterly for a thyroid condition, and each time they bill that to the insurance it's $1600.
So sure $15k is ridiculous to pay for health insurance, but in the US, its the cheap option for a family.
So sure $15k is ridiculous to pay for health insurance, but in the US, its the cheap option for a family.
That’s actually fairly “cheap”, if it’s covering more than one person.
For a brief period I lived in Virginia and had no medical coverage through my employer. The legal minimum coverage was $1,400 / month for my family of four... and it was basically worthless; I would have had to have paid out something like $40k in a single year for medical services before I would have broken even.
For a brief period I lived in Virginia and had no medical coverage through my employer. The legal minimum coverage was $1,400 / month for my family of four... and it was basically worthless; I would have had to have paid out something like $40k in a single year for medical services before I would have broken even.
I'm privy to my company's books to see the employee cost (free for the employee, usually ~$150/month to cover their family as well) as well as the total cost for all of our employees across several states. We have very high quality insurance as standard, and the full coverage plans are more like $20k - $25k/year. It's completely out of control.
> In most countries USD$15k
is more than they make in their entire lives.
Trying to compare US COL to "most countries"
And if you wanna only look at western countries that's obviously demonstrably false.
Whatever people pay as part of the healthcare tax is gonna come out to about $15K for someone who is making $100K in most EU countries.
is more than they make in their entire lives.
Trying to compare US COL to "most countries"
And if you wanna only look at western countries that's obviously demonstrably false.
Whatever people pay as part of the healthcare tax is gonna come out to about $15K for someone who is making $100K in most EU countries.
I'm currently paying over $2K USD monthly, and that's cheap for my area (family plan) :-/
That's not uncommon. US healthcare is expensive. People don't realize socialized healthcare would likely not change their paychecks negatively.
Do you use a service for bookkeeping?
I do not. Bookkeeping for a small business really doesn't take much time. I spend about 2 hours a month working the books, then come January, I have my accountant's clerk come back and do a final pass over everything to prep for taxes.
Many expenses related to the operation of the business become tax deductible. At minimum, that usually includes internet access, hardware/software upgrades, and potentially some % of your living space dedicated to the business. If you do it properly (usually via documentation), you can often include miles driven to meetings, professional travel, meals with customers, prospects, and contractors, and a ton of other things.
And still none of that considers things like Simplified Employee Pension Plan (SEP), health insurance, home maintenance, etc, etc.
The list can go on and on depending on the type of your business, jurisdiction, and supporting documentation.
* Talk to someone about your local tax rules before taking action.
And still none of that considers things like Simplified Employee Pension Plan (SEP), health insurance, home maintenance, etc, etc.
The list can go on and on depending on the type of your business, jurisdiction, and supporting documentation.
* Talk to someone about your local tax rules before taking action.
What in the world....mind sharing tips or any links where I can learn more about this?
Get a good accountant. They are seriously worth it.
This advice is invaluable.
I only pay my accountant around $2000 to handle a bunch of housekeeping at the end of the year that I'm to lazy to do during, and to file my taxes. For years I did my own taxes using Turbo Tax Self Employed and Turbo Tax Business Editions, but in 2016 I decided to outsource all of that headache, the first year, my taxes were half of what they were the year before with similar income. Then after the TCJA in 2017, my taxes were only 1/5th what they had been before the accountant, with close to double the raw income.
The biggest changes from doing it myself: I got an accountant; I incorporated (s-corp) instead of doing self-employment income; I draw W2 income now (using Gusto); I set up a SEP-IRA and put 20% of my W2 earnings as an automatic debit from my business account (in Vanguard); TCJA chops off 20% of my distributions on my K1; and I'll state again, I hired an accountant.
I only pay my accountant around $2000 to handle a bunch of housekeeping at the end of the year that I'm to lazy to do during, and to file my taxes. For years I did my own taxes using Turbo Tax Self Employed and Turbo Tax Business Editions, but in 2016 I decided to outsource all of that headache, the first year, my taxes were half of what they were the year before with similar income. Then after the TCJA in 2017, my taxes were only 1/5th what they had been before the accountant, with close to double the raw income.
The biggest changes from doing it myself: I got an accountant; I incorporated (s-corp) instead of doing self-employment income; I draw W2 income now (using Gusto); I set up a SEP-IRA and put 20% of my W2 earnings as an automatic debit from my business account (in Vanguard); TCJA chops off 20% of my distributions on my K1; and I'll state again, I hired an accountant.
I hear this advice a lot, but what does an accountant actually do differently? It always sounds magical. Are there super secret deductions and credits that aren't on Turbo Tax, and only accountants know about?
I feel like I'm doing 90% of the work already, having organized all my expenses and income. What are they doing other than typing it into their own Turbo-Tax-equivalent?
I feel like I'm doing 90% of the work already, having organized all my expenses and income. What are they doing other than typing it into their own Turbo-Tax-equivalent?
My brother explained it to me this way:
“TurboTax will take what I did last year and minimize my taxes. My accountant will tell me what to do differently this year to minimize my taxes next year.”
In other words a good accountant is a forward-looking advisor, not just a calculator.
“TurboTax will take what I did last year and minimize my taxes. My accountant will tell me what to do differently this year to minimize my taxes next year.”
In other words a good accountant is a forward-looking advisor, not just a calculator.
Any advice on how to hire a good accountant vs one that just talk so they can charge a lot?
I actually don't. I lucked into mine, he's the brother of a business partner.
Almost every accountant out there will be better than an H&R Block or Turbo Tax.
Almost every accountant out there will be better than an H&R Block or Turbo Tax.
Would love advice on how to find a good accountant.
It’s pretty easy find an accountant but they might not be good and it’s hard to tell, especially in advance.
It’s pretty easy find an accountant but they might not be good and it’s hard to tell, especially in advance.
tax laws change routinely, so you'd be best off consulting an accountant
somewhat relevant reading on what can be done if you're well versed with tax laws: https://scottestill.com/buy-new-used-car-2018-get-100-tax-de...
Surprisingly, this dealer has an entire page dedicated to it this, and why you should buy one of their SUVs: https://www.landroverhuntvalley.com/business-tax-advantage.h...
somewhat relevant reading on what can be done if you're well versed with tax laws: https://scottestill.com/buy-new-used-car-2018-get-100-tax-de...
Surprisingly, this dealer has an entire page dedicated to it this, and why you should buy one of their SUVs: https://www.landroverhuntvalley.com/business-tax-advantage.h...
Comparing working as a W2 employee doesn't really compare to working as a contractor. Getting to choose your own hours, the direction of your project, who you get to work with, etc. is far more valuable to me than a bit more money.
The article is the one that compared the two, saying that he now makes "more". It is completely correct that you cannot directly compare W2+Benefits to Contractor Revenue. The rule of thumb is to add 50% to a W2 salary to include health insurance and other benefits.
So he is nearly there, but not yet.
So he is nearly there, but not yet.
I worked as a contractor in 1099 for years. It was exactly the same as W2, except I had to pay estimated taxes 4 times a year. I didn't get to choose hours, direction, who to work with.
I think you're confusing it with personal projects.
I think you're confusing it with personal projects.
> I didn't get to choose hours, direction, who to work with.
There is nuance in that statement. The IRS has a test for whether a person is an employee or a contractor.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr...
There is nuance in that statement. The IRS has a test for whether a person is an employee or a contractor.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr...
You're right. The 112k as his own small business is far, far better. What he's built has real durable value and new people will continue to pay for old content.
I hit $500/yr on Patreon this week for my open source work! :)
Nice work, I should think about having paid only videos as well, I believe I can do that pretty easily on Patreon. Good tips in here.
Nice work, I should think about having paid only videos as well, I believe I can do that pretty easily on Patreon. Good tips in here.
Lol I didn't notice there wasn't a 'k' in there and was really impressed for a moment.
I'm still impressed. It makes me happy to see that people are getting a bit of money for the value they bring us.
Anybody have opinions/reasoning on Patreon vs Github Sponsors when it comes to open source work?
The biggest difference would be that GitHub Sponsors has no fees [1], so everything people put in will go to the developer. Where Patreon can take 5-12% depending on the plan [2].
Additionally, GitHub is just so much closer to the actual open source work and more easily discoverable for users of your product.
As a supporter, I'll pick GitHub over Patreon anytime.
[1] https://help.github.com/en/github/supporting-the-open-source... [2] https://www.patreon.com/product/pricing
Additionally, GitHub is just so much closer to the actual open source work and more easily discoverable for users of your product.
As a supporter, I'll pick GitHub over Patreon anytime.
[1] https://help.github.com/en/github/supporting-the-open-source... [2] https://www.patreon.com/product/pricing
That's what I was surprised the most about. 0% cut and they also mentioned a 5k match? What? How is that even viable for Microsoft?
That seems superior to basically every single platform out there. It's an instant win for GitHub Sponsors.
That seems superior to basically every single platform out there. It's an instant win for GitHub Sponsors.
It's a promotional incentive. Fees will happen, and matching will end. But in the meantime, it means my sponsoring a project I care about magnifies my money for a cause I value, so I'm happy to participate.
Paying 5k to high profile people is probably just a fraction of what they spend on marketing, but probably more effective.
Say you are a marketer and you bring hundreds of paying users to a platform, 5k is cheap.
Say you are a marketer and you bring hundreds of paying users to a platform, 5k is cheap.
Microsoft has such deep pockets, they can probably afford to lose a bit here to get people to migrate to their platform.
Yeah the $5k match seems easy to game
I for myself, coming from a privileged situation wonder if 500$/yr would be worth it for me.
Do calling it "work" it is too little. Won't pay the time spent on a job.
At the same time it is an amount of money, causing responsibility. Giving the feeling that one has to return something for it ...
So how does at affect your fun-level?
Do calling it "work" it is too little. Won't pay the time spent on a job.
At the same time it is an amount of money, causing responsibility. Giving the feeling that one has to return something for it ...
So how does at affect your fun-level?
I don't have the feeling that I have to give something in return. It's a voluntary donation, people can donate, or not. They can cancel at any time. I don't feel any pressure to 'deliver' anything. They're paying because they want to reward the value I have provided, and likely will continue to provide. If I stop providing it, I assume people will slowly cancel their donations, which is how things should work.
If anything the fun-level has gone way up because a community has formed around one of my projects, which has been great.
If anything the fun-level has gone way up because a community has formed around one of my projects, which has been great.
I have my own little company and I feel like since its profitable (7 figures/year) I'm able to take my time and perfect parts of the project (like SQL indexing, UI/UX, new features). The money allows me to have the freedom to have fun. I've built internal libraries where I could have just used an open source version, but its mine and I enjoy it.
I had started another company before that I spent over a year on and I made $0. Not fun.
I had started another company before that I spent over a year on and I made $0. Not fun.
Congratulations! That's great! How long have you been doing the open source work and what industry does it serve?
Thanks! Years now, though the project that has gained traction lately is HomelabOS. https://homelabos.com/
Not really serving industry, self-hosters and home-labbers.
Not really serving industry, self-hosters and home-labbers.
That is actually quite cool. If people had to pay for facebook they wouldn't. What do you think is missing for self-hosters, easy sign up ? I don't think it is easy create to DNS and private server for normal folks.
> Here’s how Sponsorware works:
> Create a cool piece of software
> Make it exclusive to people who sponsor you until you reach a certain number of sponsors
> Then open source the project to the world
This is how ICOs worked, for the teams that actually delivered anything. Without any other monetization path they resorted to taking presales of tokens shoehorned in convulated ways into products that didn't need them, but frequently involved open source code for a community. This resulted in many misaligned interests for people that eseentially were sponsors.
It's nice to see the same sentiment reflected in other parts of the tech industry in a way that more people respect and can relate to.
> Create a cool piece of software
> Make it exclusive to people who sponsor you until you reach a certain number of sponsors
> Then open source the project to the world
This is how ICOs worked, for the teams that actually delivered anything. Without any other monetization path they resorted to taking presales of tokens shoehorned in convulated ways into products that didn't need them, but frequently involved open source code for a community. This resulted in many misaligned interests for people that eseentially were sponsors.
It's nice to see the same sentiment reflected in other parts of the tech industry in a way that more people respect and can relate to.
Or Kickstarter or any other kind of fundraising effort I guess. It’s a pretty cool adaptation of a fairly established practice.
His data clearly shows most "sponsors" only sponsor him to view his webcasts. Is it really right to call that a sponsorship, as opposed to a subscription? What are the legal implications? (and yes, I'm aware that this is how most of patreon works too)
I'm a lawyer, but I can't give legal advice here. See https://notlegaladvice.law/.
If you're interested in the issue, however, you might start by reading a little about "money transmitter" regulations. An early payments platform for open projects shut down at least partly on account of it. I suspect the concept of "perks" became widespread in part to differentiate fundraising platforms from money transmitters.
If you're interested in the issue, however, you might start by reading a little about "money transmitter" regulations. An early payments platform for open projects shut down at least partly on account of it. I suspect the concept of "perks" became widespread in part to differentiate fundraising platforms from money transmitters.
In the UK at least this kind of revenue is taxable and hmrc doesn't really care if it's called donation, sponsorship or subscription. It makes a difference when it's a charity of course but open source projects usually are not.
The sponsorware idea was something we also want to do;
- add sponsors as collaborators in the project
- give sponsors access to all versions from the get-go
- set a $ limit, when reached, will trigger full open-sourcing of the project
- have public sponsor income page where people can follow the progress
- add sponsors as collaborators in the project
- give sponsors access to all versions from the get-go
- set a $ limit, when reached, will trigger full open-sourcing of the project
- have public sponsor income page where people can follow the progress
Sponsoring the official screencasts/educational content for an open source project is a great idea. I run a company[1] that provides a service targeted at software engineers and I'd pay several hundred to several thousand a month to have a 30 second promo at the start of a video, depending on the size of the project.
Is there a website out there where I can find content I can sponsor?
Also, keep in mind that when you are self employed you need to make 20-30% more than your salary as an employee if you want the same take home pay. That covers the extra self-employment tax you have to pay, health insurance, business insurance, etc. If you charge by the hour, you might find this article on how to calculate an hourly rate helpful: https://help.facetdev.com/docs/how-do-i-calculate-my-hourly-...
[1] Shameless plug: www.facetdev.com
Is there a website out there where I can find content I can sponsor?
Also, keep in mind that when you are self employed you need to make 20-30% more than your salary as an employee if you want the same take home pay. That covers the extra self-employment tax you have to pay, health insurance, business insurance, etc. If you charge by the hour, you might find this article on how to calculate an hourly rate helpful: https://help.facetdev.com/docs/how-do-i-calculate-my-hourly-...
[1] Shameless plug: www.facetdev.com
Although that doesn't sound like a bad idea, that is unfortunately not what he was talking about.
By sponsors he meant patrons that get a perk of accessing screencasts when they subscribe (sponsor him).
Props. Well done.
The thing that struck me most was the podcast appearance. I was distantly affiliated with the music industry at one point and I saw over and over the value of being in the right place at the right time. Great bands languish because they just weren't seen.
I don't mean to diminish the work, either the technological or the effort of finding sponsors. I just want to caution about extrapolating success stories to utopianism. Success is more random than we'd like to believe, and there is a risk when failure leads to victim blaming.
The thing that struck me most was the podcast appearance. I was distantly affiliated with the music industry at one point and I saw over and over the value of being in the right place at the right time. Great bands languish because they just weren't seen.
I don't mean to diminish the work, either the technological or the effort of finding sponsors. I just want to caution about extrapolating success stories to utopianism. Success is more random than we'd like to believe, and there is a risk when failure leads to victim blaming.
> Success is more random than we'd like to believe, and there is a risk when failure leads to victim blaming.
An excellent sentiment, if less common these days than it should be. Reminds me of a quotation from Chapter XXV[0] of Machiavelli's The Prince: "Nevertheless, not to extinguish our free will, I hold it to be true that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions, but that she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less."
[0]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm#link2H...
An excellent sentiment, if less common these days than it should be. Reminds me of a quotation from Chapter XXV[0] of Machiavelli's The Prince: "Nevertheless, not to extinguish our free will, I hold it to be true that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions, but that she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less."
[0]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm#link2H...
Over the course of an entire lifetime, the random good vs bad luck tend to wash out and people usually end their lives financially roughly in line with their capabilities. - my personal opinion and experience.
Demonstrably false considering massive wealth inequality and poverty. It's incredibly harmful and uneducated to hold such a callous opinion. It also goes against the plentiful studies showing that socieconomic status (SES) is more significant predictor of success than almost any other attribute.
Simple scenarios:
- immigrants/refugees moving to a different country
- getting visas in what is largely a lottery system
- injury luck with respect to athleticism
- access to equipment and instruments with respect to musical talent
- slavery and generational poverty
The idea that _capability_ is anywhere close to as important as luck fails so many simple tests (let alone empirical studies) that your statement offends me a little bit.
Simple scenarios:
- immigrants/refugees moving to a different country
- getting visas in what is largely a lottery system
- injury luck with respect to athleticism
- access to equipment and instruments with respect to musical talent
- slavery and generational poverty
The idea that _capability_ is anywhere close to as important as luck fails so many simple tests (let alone empirical studies) that your statement offends me a little bit.
Back when I applied for an H1B visa, the chances that I'd be outright rejected was 30%. The next few years I believe it climbed to 60%. Just the fact that I found a company willing to apply to my visa involved a lot of luck. Even me being on the US before the H1B involved a lot of luck. Then luck to get the visa. So much of my career was based on luck. Sure, I seized some opportunities when they flew by, but it's not like I was steering super hard to make them happen. Some people will make success happen because they're super smart and relentless, but for a lot of people like me, I believe there's an incredible amount of luck involved.
It kind of grinds my gears when some people give lessons on how to be successful and don't acknowledge that luck was a part of it.
It kind of grinds my gears when some people give lessons on how to be successful and don't acknowledge that luck was a part of it.
Cohorts that graduate into a recession earn less over the course of their lifetimes than cohorts that graduate into normal times. It can take a decade or more to catch back up to their earning potential, meanwhile those who graduated a year earlier or later able to earn compounding interest on their additional income.
I find it hard to believe that birth year is strongly correlated with capabilities.
I find it hard to believe that birth year is strongly correlated with capabilities.
That's seriously out of touch with the data. Play around with the animation tool at the bottom of this article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/make-y...
The article it was created for is at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-c...
The article it was created for is at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-c...
This is one of those things only people who have had way more good luck than bad could say.
I would agree, with the caveat of "all else being equal". There is a danger in ignoring vast socioeconomic divides that can put people at a disadvantage that can make things more difficult for certain demographics.
This seems very wrong.
Looking at life as a massive state machine, I think it’s clear that some parts of the state machine are much more beneficial than others. Luck often pushes people into a bad area or good area, and it can be quite difficult to transition out of that area of the state machine, for better or worse.
Competency and hard work are obviously very important, but luck is an enormous factor as well. And luck, along with its compounding effects, is not uniformly distributed across all individuals.
Looking at life as a massive state machine, I think it’s clear that some parts of the state machine are much more beneficial than others. Luck often pushes people into a bad area or good area, and it can be quite difficult to transition out of that area of the state machine, for better or worse.
Competency and hard work are obviously very important, but luck is an enormous factor as well. And luck, along with its compounding effects, is not uniformly distributed across all individuals.
What is it about luck that ensures it averages out over the time-span of a human lifetime? Seems a little anthropocentric of a viewpoint to me.
Well, "luck" is a phenomenon of perception, not reality. Since it's people who perceive, being anthropocentric makes sense. On the other hand, that also makes it subjective, hence describing it may reveal more about the describer than the effect.
“Luck is probability taken personally.” – Chip Denman
I’m amazed at how many comments piled up insisting that luck is a major or possibly the most significant factor. Even if true, what a self-defeating outlook. Every accusation is a confession.
I’m amazed at how many comments piled up insisting that luck is a major or possibly the most significant factor. Even if true, what a self-defeating outlook. Every accusation is a confession.
Perhaps consider that some people are talking about luck as a way of reasoning about how we should organize society (if luck is a factor that may imply stronger safety nets) while others (like you, I'd gather) are talking about how to approach one's own life? That's how I've been reasoning about the discussion and it helps clarify things.
What you wrote is insightful as to the underlying thinking, but I’m not sure I buy the premise. If luck is the dominating factor, how is the outcome of any election legitimate? Aren’t the winners merely the luckiest? Where’s the safety net for the unfortunate also-rans? Who are the rightful representatives to do the organizing? The questions are interesting because the ancient Athenians would reject what we call democracy due to our reliance on popular elections, which they viewed with suspicion as a tool of oligarchy. Although some posts were elected, they largely preferred sortition or luck of the draw.
Current and former gifted students are likely overrepresented on HN. Underachievement (whether real or perceived) is a source of stress or depression for this population[0], and defense mechanisms[1] are a common coping strategy. In [1], the authors define quadrants based on high or low success orientation and fear of failure.
1. Optimists - high success orientation, low fear of failure: low sense of helplessness
2. Overstrivers - high success orientation, high fear of failure: risk of burnout, tend to have high “defensive pessimism”
3. Acceptors - low success orientation, low fear of failure: tend to have low self esteem and high helplessness
4. Self-protectors - low success orientation, high fear of failure: tend to have high defensive pessimism and self-handicapping
They define defensive pessimism as “artificially lowering expectations of performance when a performance will be evaluated in order to lessen the hurt of failure and turn success into an unexpected surprise” and self-handicapping as “generating conditions that will produce an excuse for failure through actions such as procrastination, task avoidance, withholding effort, and other strategies.” They label both harmful.[0]
To this optimist, assigning everything to luck looks like all of helplessness, defensive pessimism, and self-handicapping: “I’m smarter than that bum, so his success must be due to dumb luck.”
[0]: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...
[1]: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-14500-001
Current and former gifted students are likely overrepresented on HN. Underachievement (whether real or perceived) is a source of stress or depression for this population[0], and defense mechanisms[1] are a common coping strategy. In [1], the authors define quadrants based on high or low success orientation and fear of failure.
1. Optimists - high success orientation, low fear of failure: low sense of helplessness
2. Overstrivers - high success orientation, high fear of failure: risk of burnout, tend to have high “defensive pessimism”
3. Acceptors - low success orientation, low fear of failure: tend to have low self esteem and high helplessness
4. Self-protectors - low success orientation, high fear of failure: tend to have high defensive pessimism and self-handicapping
They define defensive pessimism as “artificially lowering expectations of performance when a performance will be evaluated in order to lessen the hurt of failure and turn success into an unexpected surprise” and self-handicapping as “generating conditions that will produce an excuse for failure through actions such as procrastination, task avoidance, withholding effort, and other strategies.” They label both harmful.[0]
To this optimist, assigning everything to luck looks like all of helplessness, defensive pessimism, and self-handicapping: “I’m smarter than that bum, so his success must be due to dumb luck.”
[0]: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...
[1]: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-14500-001
> If luck is the dominating factor, how is the outcome of any election legitimate? Aren’t the winners merely the luckiest?
On the one hand, I think this may be conflating different senses of luck. On the other hand, yes, luck played a big role in the winner of the election ending up in that position, but not because the election itself was akin to a coin flip (hyperbole), but because luck has a small impact innumerable times in the goings on of that individual's life leading up to that point.
> Where’s the safety net for the unfortunate also-rans?
Thinking about this, it's actually a good question. If the goal of an election is to select the person most able to perform the role of the elected position most satisfactorily, then providing a mechanism by which those without access to traditional campaigning resources and capital to participate could allow more qualified individuals to participate in the election who otherwise wouldn't have been able to.
And this is, I think, precisely the point of saying that luck is a bigger factor than people acknowledge because in order to be elected today, you need to have the connections and capital necessary to execute a successful campaign while continuing to fulfill any other obligations you have during the time leading up to the election, and you need to have something in place to deal with not being elected, something to fall back on. That's a whole bunch of moving parts that need to align before it makes sense to participate in an election.
On the one hand, I think this may be conflating different senses of luck. On the other hand, yes, luck played a big role in the winner of the election ending up in that position, but not because the election itself was akin to a coin flip (hyperbole), but because luck has a small impact innumerable times in the goings on of that individual's life leading up to that point.
> Where’s the safety net for the unfortunate also-rans?
Thinking about this, it's actually a good question. If the goal of an election is to select the person most able to perform the role of the elected position most satisfactorily, then providing a mechanism by which those without access to traditional campaigning resources and capital to participate could allow more qualified individuals to participate in the election who otherwise wouldn't have been able to.
And this is, I think, precisely the point of saying that luck is a bigger factor than people acknowledge because in order to be elected today, you need to have the connections and capital necessary to execute a successful campaign while continuing to fulfill any other obligations you have during the time leading up to the election, and you need to have something in place to deal with not being elected, something to fall back on. That's a whole bunch of moving parts that need to align before it makes sense to participate in an election.
Our capabilities are also luck: genetics, access to education and compounding that the rich will enjoy more often. The homeless person from a broken home trying to stay alive is less capable of writing distributed software. On average. Yes there will be rags to riches stories that make great reads, and set the standard of the “insert country” dream.
Yeah; I have been trying to find ways to support my open source work and educational work over the past year, and I finally struck YouTube algorithm gold with a couple videos last month... but trying to replicate that success is hard.
Sometimes I can spend days or more polishing a blog post or video and making it really good—and it falls flat.
Other times I'll write up a post in an hour or so and it front pages on HN, gets traction on Reddit, etc.
It seems more random than anything, though the fact that I've put in lots of hours on other content means I'm not starting from zero here.
For GitHub sponsors, I didn't get any real traction until I explicitly started asking people to be a sponsor. I don't even have 'rewards' or anything... maybe that would help, maybe not. But it's still hard to get people to commit money to my cause, and I think the same skills are required for this that would be useful in nonprofits and charities soliciting donations.
Sometimes I can spend days or more polishing a blog post or video and making it really good—and it falls flat.
Other times I'll write up a post in an hour or so and it front pages on HN, gets traction on Reddit, etc.
It seems more random than anything, though the fact that I've put in lots of hours on other content means I'm not starting from zero here.
For GitHub sponsors, I didn't get any real traction until I explicitly started asking people to be a sponsor. I don't even have 'rewards' or anything... maybe that would help, maybe not. But it's still hard to get people to commit money to my cause, and I think the same skills are required for this that would be useful in nonprofits and charities soliciting donations.
Hey there -- I came across your blog a year or so ago via the Rpi Drupal stack. Cool stuff.
I didn't realize you had such a large YouTube presence. I'm curious how you got started. You seem to be quite interested in Ansible so I imagine you just started there and it grew organically?
FWIW -- I'm looking to start making YouTube videos on full-stack web development. I used to be a high school teacher before teaching myself programming well enough to do it professionally so I think I'd be pretty good at this topic/market (entry-mid level). I'm just not sure exactly where to start, how to make myself standout compared to others doing the same thing, etc.
Maybe you've written a blog post on this topic before you could direct me to? Is entry level full-stack web dev too broad? Thanks in advance, keep up the good work!
I didn't realize you had such a large YouTube presence. I'm curious how you got started. You seem to be quite interested in Ansible so I imagine you just started there and it grew organically?
FWIW -- I'm looking to start making YouTube videos on full-stack web development. I used to be a high school teacher before teaching myself programming well enough to do it professionally so I think I'd be pretty good at this topic/market (entry-mid level). I'm just not sure exactly where to start, how to make myself standout compared to others doing the same thing, etc.
Maybe you've written a blog post on this topic before you could direct me to? Is entry level full-stack web dev too broad? Thanks in advance, keep up the good work!
There is a lot to it—sometimes it's just luck.
I started live streaming one project pre-COVID. Then when lockdowns started, I used the experience I gained there to do my Ansible 101 series, and it kind of snowballed a bit from there.
I also have a media production and communications background (from college / post-college days), which helps a lot, because even if the tech changes, the techniques don't.
I started out doing video with a mini VHS camera that I put into an old Performa Mac through a TV capture card and I forget what NLE I used at that time. Then I jumped to MiniDV with some nice Canon SD equipment and got some good audio gear and worked from a G3/G4 with Final Cut Express for a while, before I stopped doing much video work for a decade.
Skip forward a few years and now the whole world's 1080p minimum/4K often, and lighting and technique is way more important—but knowing the basics from back in the day means I can still make decent quality video with the equipment I have available.
I started live streaming one project pre-COVID. Then when lockdowns started, I used the experience I gained there to do my Ansible 101 series, and it kind of snowballed a bit from there.
I also have a media production and communications background (from college / post-college days), which helps a lot, because even if the tech changes, the techniques don't.
I started out doing video with a mini VHS camera that I put into an old Performa Mac through a TV capture card and I forget what NLE I used at that time. Then I jumped to MiniDV with some nice Canon SD equipment and got some good audio gear and worked from a G3/G4 with Final Cut Express for a while, before I stopped doing much video work for a decade.
Skip forward a few years and now the whole world's 1080p minimum/4K often, and lighting and technique is way more important—but knowing the basics from back in the day means I can still make decent quality video with the equipment I have available.
So just checked out one of your videos, and you seem to have a good process.
I recently bought a mic and a nice webcam (March) to do recordings and live streams, but got hung up on recording processing, etc.
Don’t know if it makes sense for you to do a meta video on that, or just share your thoughts on the OBS software and post processing, or if that’d be something worth reaching out to you on.
Like you, I’m very engaged in OSS, so I’m happy you’re seeing success!
I recently bought a mic and a nice webcam (March) to do recordings and live streams, but got hung up on recording processing, etc.
Don’t know if it makes sense for you to do a meta video on that, or just share your thoughts on the OBS software and post processing, or if that’d be something worth reaching out to you on.
Like you, I’m very engaged in OSS, so I’m happy you’re seeing success!
I wrote about it a bit earlier this year: https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2020/how-i-livestream-obs-...
But I'm considering doing a little more in the realm of 'how its made' type videos, because you can do most of the things 'professional' video producers do on a budget, depending on how many nice things you want to do in a video.
But I'm considering doing a little more in the realm of 'how its made' type videos, because you can do most of the things 'professional' video producers do on a budget, depending on how many nice things you want to do in a video.
Success is more random than we'd like to believe
Perhaps, but I think a lot of people tend to say that, then conclude that they should just wait around for luck (not saying you're doing this, though).
Another approach is to do everything you can (podcast appearances, for example!) to increase your "luck surface area".
Perhaps, but I think a lot of people tend to say that, then conclude that they should just wait around for luck (not saying you're doing this, though).
Another approach is to do everything you can (podcast appearances, for example!) to increase your "luck surface area".
> Perhaps, but I think a lot of people tend to say that, then conclude that they should just wait around for luck (not saying you're doing this, though).
I'm curious as to why you think that? It could be cultural differences but I have never seen that behaviour except from those that are already depressed and have given up.
IMO the simplest analogy for success is poker. You make the best decisions you can given the information you have. You adjust as new information is revealed. Ultimately, success or failure is less relevant than the process.
I'm curious as to why you think that? It could be cultural differences but I have never seen that behaviour except from those that are already depressed and have given up.
IMO the simplest analogy for success is poker. You make the best decisions you can given the information you have. You adjust as new information is revealed. Ultimately, success or failure is less relevant than the process.
Yet the same faces seem to show up over and over at the final table because some are better than others at executing the process, maintaining control of emotions, bankroll management, and so on.
Of course given a large enough sample size process wins out! People's capabilities and knowledge differ. The issue is in determining _what_ good process _is_ given the vast environment that is a globalized economy.
That is why socioeconomic status is so important with respect to success. There's a difference when you can play a thousand hands vs. ten.
That is why socioeconomic status is so important with respect to success. There's a difference when you can play a thousand hands vs. ten.
Yeah exactly this.
Luck is arguably the most important variable, so optimize for it. It's less like buying lottery tickets and more like betting on horses but with outsized returns.
If you bet on one horse, in one race, you'll probably lose and blame luck. But if you keep on betting, you're going to get lucky.
5% chance of success on a given attempt just means try 50 times. Which is also why it's important to test ideas fast and cheap, killing bad ideas quickly.
Practically speaking, who you know, who knows you, where you are, and when seem to be the external factors, and the number of distinct attempts seems to be the internal factor.
Do you have any other insights to add?
Luck is arguably the most important variable, so optimize for it. It's less like buying lottery tickets and more like betting on horses but with outsized returns.
If you bet on one horse, in one race, you'll probably lose and blame luck. But if you keep on betting, you're going to get lucky.
5% chance of success on a given attempt just means try 50 times. Which is also why it's important to test ideas fast and cheap, killing bad ideas quickly.
Practically speaking, who you know, who knows you, where you are, and when seem to be the external factors, and the number of distinct attempts seems to be the internal factor.
Do you have any other insights to add?
There's a saying: "Pray like it all depends on God. Work like it all depends on you." Adapt that to your belief system.
Work and prayer are not enough. While one's nose is to the grindstone, beavering away at whatever task, someone slightly wiser will notice some shortcut worth a year of diligent labor and prayer. The leisure time that shortcut buys will enable the identification of other valuable knowledge... It may be better yet to join such ingenuity with the labor you're talking about.
But ingenuity is part of work. Granted, knowing when to take a step back from brute force is a skill that must be developed and one at which some seem to have stronger natural aptitude than others.
yeah this is ripe for survivorship bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
While what you write is true, quite often lead engineers of big open source projects quit working on the project because they get frustrated of all the people demanding features from them.
As patreon got more successful over time and youtubers make part of their content payed, I would be surprised if many open source engineers without other revenue didn't adopt more of the sponsorware business model.
As patreon got more successful over time and youtubers make part of their content payed, I would be surprised if many open source engineers without other revenue didn't adopt more of the sponsorware business model.
The IRS website sometimes uses exact dollar amounts of reported tax information as identity verification. Author probably should replace screenshots of tax forms with rough figures.
For those wondering here is the repo in question and it has 4.5k stars https://github.com/livewire/livewire
Did Github just undergo a design update? The buttons are flatter and it looks more like Gitlab to me now.
Yep, unfortunatley.
I left feedback the moment it entered "feature preview", left feedback on all the accessibility it lacked (mainly reducing contrast everywhere), and well, looks like they just rolled it out anyways.
Really wish they would take things like people being able to see their product without difficulty seriously.
I left feedback the moment it entered "feature preview", left feedback on all the accessibility it lacked (mainly reducing contrast everywhere), and well, looks like they just rolled it out anyways.
Really wish they would take things like people being able to see their product without difficulty seriously.
Yes
Wow there’s so much negativity here.
I just want to say congratulations. I think the sponsorware concept is very cool and could be good for the community. I’m glad someone has found a way to make money in open source.
I just want to say congratulations. I think the sponsorware concept is very cool and could be good for the community. I’m glad someone has found a way to make money in open source.
I'm not sure I fully understand the sponsorware model. Hopefully someone will educate me.
If my costs for writing a piece of software are initially X, I'd hope to make at least X back before I open source it. (Ignore loss-leaders for now)
If I'm counting number of sponsors, do I calculate them as if they will stick around for a year? 100% retention seems unlikely. Do I only open source after I've had Y sponsors for Z time such that sum(Y.donations) * Z == X?
Then after I open source it I have ongoing costs. His experience seems to imply that educational content (paid) then also pays for ongoing maintenance costs. Is that correct?
What if I later decide to stop supporting a project? Is there any mechanism to stop a stream of income from a group of sponsors, or will I have to assume they will "naturally" stop sponsoring when I kill new education content and updates to the project? This seems problematic as inertia will cause some people to keep paying despite not getting further value, which will cause some of them to be angry and demand "refunds."
What if my project really takes off? What would be a possible path to scale from say 1-5 paid collaborators?
If my costs for writing a piece of software are initially X, I'd hope to make at least X back before I open source it. (Ignore loss-leaders for now)
If I'm counting number of sponsors, do I calculate them as if they will stick around for a year? 100% retention seems unlikely. Do I only open source after I've had Y sponsors for Z time such that sum(Y.donations) * Z == X?
Then after I open source it I have ongoing costs. His experience seems to imply that educational content (paid) then also pays for ongoing maintenance costs. Is that correct?
What if I later decide to stop supporting a project? Is there any mechanism to stop a stream of income from a group of sponsors, or will I have to assume they will "naturally" stop sponsoring when I kill new education content and updates to the project? This seems problematic as inertia will cause some people to keep paying despite not getting further value, which will cause some of them to be angry and demand "refunds."
What if my project really takes off? What would be a possible path to scale from say 1-5 paid collaborators?
I'm not sure what is more impressive, the thought of 100k in 5 months from sponsorship or that the author ported a solution to another environment and got 100k sponsorship out of it?
Wow, Good job!
Not really understanding the comparison to SV salaries. This opens up many doors for the author, something that money wouldn't be able to do.
Wow, Good job!
Not really understanding the comparison to SV salaries. This opens up many doors for the author, something that money wouldn't be able to do.
If Github sponsors proves to be a viable and scalable solution for OSS developers, this could spike a huge boost in quantity and quality of OSS.
We've seen a similar effect with YouTube - by providing a monetization path for creators, it attracts talent, and allows them to finance a lifestyle around it. And it's a self-accelerating cycle - the growth in quality and quantity increases demand for the content which increases the quality and quantity.
We've seen a similar effect with YouTube - by providing a monetization path for creators, it attracts talent, and allows them to finance a lifestyle around it. And it's a self-accelerating cycle - the growth in quality and quantity increases demand for the content which increases the quality and quantity.
I absolutely never heard anything about "Github sponsors" until now, which is actually what I always wished that somebody would create... .
I thought as well (and still keep thinking) that if I'll ever manage to create something successful which generates $, then I'll share a part of the revenue with the (open-source) parts that my <whatever: app/website/etc...> uses/needs.
I thought as well (and still keep thinking) that if I'll ever manage to create something successful which generates $, then I'll share a part of the revenue with the (open-source) parts that my <whatever: app/website/etc...> uses/needs.
Coil and Mozilla are working on something very similar to sponsorship but instead with micropayments that are streamed to content creator's wallets via a new open Web Monetization standard. https://webmonetization.org/docs/getting-started.html
Would be neat to see more sites adopt the web monetization standard via coil or other sites like it that enable content creators to offer paid content and get paid passively as more people discovered their content.
Would be neat to see more sites adopt the web monetization standard via coil or other sites like it that enable content creators to offer paid content and get paid passively as more people discovered their content.
"All of this works because I spent years and years honing my craft and producing software that is truly useful. I’ve poured everything I have into that work, and there are no shortcuts there."
This reminds me of Steve Martin's, "You Can Be a Millionaire ... and Never Pay Taxes":
“You say, ‘Steve, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?’”
“OK first,” he explains, “get a million dollars.”
This reminds me of Steve Martin's, "You Can Be a Millionaire ... and Never Pay Taxes":
“You say, ‘Steve, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?’”
“OK first,” he explains, “get a million dollars.”
That's phenomenal! Hitting $100k in 5 months.
Here is OP's repo - https://github.com/livewire/livewire
Here is OP's repo - https://github.com/livewire/livewire
$100k is still not even close to how much you can make in SV as an engineer. Specially an engineer at this caliber. But working on OSS full time is probably 100x more fulfilling than building CRUD for a boring ad company.
First, I think you're overestimating how much you can make as an engineer in SV. It's more, but it's not fair to say $100k is "not even close".
Second, there's more to life than working at, say, Facebook/Netflix/etc for money. The pure happiness of working on something you care about is worth a lot of money to some people.
Third, if this person ever wants to get a real job, the $100k won't go away, and they'll easily add $50k to their starting offer for running a prolific open source project.
Lastly, look at that graph. It's going up. Zero to $100k is really good for 6 months, and in another 6 months it'll potentially double. Most startups don't get to $100k this quick. More people will use this as time goes on, they can start new projects, they can do high-end freelancing for companies using it, etc.
Second, there's more to life than working at, say, Facebook/Netflix/etc for money. The pure happiness of working on something you care about is worth a lot of money to some people.
Third, if this person ever wants to get a real job, the $100k won't go away, and they'll easily add $50k to their starting offer for running a prolific open source project.
Lastly, look at that graph. It's going up. Zero to $100k is really good for 6 months, and in another 6 months it'll potentially double. Most startups don't get to $100k this quick. More people will use this as time goes on, they can start new projects, they can do high-end freelancing for companies using it, etc.
> Third, if this person ever wants to get a real job, the $100k won't go away,
It's true the $100k doesn't immediately disappear, but it seems safe to assume that taking on a full time job would leave a lot less time to do OSS work and would probably result in a non-trivial loss of sponsorship.
It's true the $100k doesn't immediately disappear, but it seems safe to assume that taking on a full time job would leave a lot less time to do OSS work and would probably result in a non-trivial loss of sponsorship.
I would estimate Sr. or better is possible for someone who is able to independently run a OSS project. Going off https://www.levels.fyi/company/Google/salaries/Software-Engi... that comes out to ~$350k/yr going up one more level gets you ~$500k/yr
I will let you decide if 3.5x - 5x is "not even close".
I will let you decide if 3.5x - 5x is "not even close".
Those numbers are real, no doubt about it but even if you potentially have the skills and knowledge to compete for those positions, your odds of getting such a job are still incredibly slim. If you are young, immensely talented(for the lack of a better word), and in a location near the job offering, then yes, there's a chance. But even giants such as FAANGs will have their doubts when you're 30+ and on the other side of the planet, even if your profile fits the needs of a senior engineer better than the youngsters next door, because they are well aware that at this point in your life, your priorities are increasingly becoming children and elder family members and it is incredibly likely for you to pack your bag and leave the moment something goes wrong with your family on the other side of the planet. And with such salaries, you'd be perfectly capable of doing that in 6 months, just when their investment is starting to pay off. Strictly speaking, you are looking at a very small subset of a subset that was tiny to begin with. For most people that doesn't happen even in dreams.
To be fair, it will be just as hard to make a compelling, valuable OSS project if you don't possess the same skills and talents that FAANG hires for.
From experience I would say running the OSS project is definitely harder, but the type of person who is capable of making a successful OSS project is not the type of person who can chain themselves to a chair for 3 months and practice interview questions. Studying for FAANG interviews is arduous and extremely non-rewarding. It is like the extreme opposite of an OSS project, where you put in the same hours and have exactly nothing to show for it.
Unless you're doing interesting things at google for that 300-500k, 100k to work on OSS problems seems immeasurably better to me especially because they don't have to live in the bay area.
100k in pretty much anywhere but the east or west coast may as well be 300k.
100k in pretty much anywhere but the east or west coast may as well be 300k.
If we're talking raw numbers, that doesn't compute well.
My last rent in Houston for an actual cool place to live (downtown Westheimer area) was a solid 1.3k, or 15k a year. So after taxes rough estimate 70k - 15k = 55k into your savings account, before expenses etc.
I have the best apartment I've ever had in my life practically on top of 16th mission station right now for 2.1k. I'm not making 300k but if I was, let's see: 210k - 25k = 185k into savings each year, not including expenses. That's 3x the amount of money for investment, savings, playtime in places where the money goes the same distance no matter where your permanent address is.
State and city income tax aren't going to eliminate that 3x difference. Brunch costing 50$ vs 20$ isn't going to make up that difference.
We can talk about quality of life as well but that'll be a much, much longer comment from me, and feels like a pointless conversation (city folk gonna city).
My last rent in Houston for an actual cool place to live (downtown Westheimer area) was a solid 1.3k, or 15k a year. So after taxes rough estimate 70k - 15k = 55k into your savings account, before expenses etc.
I have the best apartment I've ever had in my life practically on top of 16th mission station right now for 2.1k. I'm not making 300k but if I was, let's see: 210k - 25k = 185k into savings each year, not including expenses. That's 3x the amount of money for investment, savings, playtime in places where the money goes the same distance no matter where your permanent address is.
State and city income tax aren't going to eliminate that 3x difference. Brunch costing 50$ vs 20$ isn't going to make up that difference.
We can talk about quality of life as well but that'll be a much, much longer comment from me, and feels like a pointless conversation (city folk gonna city).
I see the time spent making that 300k at a fang as 40-60 hour a week opportunity cost on better work with the caveat that if you are doing work you consider personally interesting then good for you. I think ultimately we have very different priorities from each other though and view money differently as well.
Well that's fair, though a different discussion. I would argue you could probably find a project at Google that promotes your values, who knows though.
In any case, my numbers hold up for bay area startup salaries as well - if they didn't, I wouldn't live here lol.
In any case, my numbers hold up for bay area startup salaries as well - if they didn't, I wouldn't live here lol.
I'm currently working on founding a search engine that is in direct opposition of Google's values, or potentially lack thereof, so I think that might be a hard sell for them ;)
And the numbers don't really work out for founders for the first couple years in terms of any salary so I think again we view money differently. I'm not really disputing that your numbers work for being an employee but they don't really hold out for people working to start their own thing, at least in the short term. As I'm sure the OP is aware there's intangible benefits that don't take the form of a retirement account associated with running your own thing.
Edit: I'll also say we may be at a point where we're starting to talk passed each other, your math checks out for sure I just don't value the benefits associated as much.
And the numbers don't really work out for founders for the first couple years in terms of any salary so I think again we view money differently. I'm not really disputing that your numbers work for being an employee but they don't really hold out for people working to start their own thing, at least in the short term. As I'm sure the OP is aware there's intangible benefits that don't take the form of a retirement account associated with running your own thing.
Edit: I'll also say we may be at a point where we're starting to talk passed each other, your math checks out for sure I just don't value the benefits associated as much.
That's really cool, care to link? I'm slowly extricating myself from Google and Facebook.
I think we don't disagree for reasons other than raw money about why working somewhere other than FAANG would be good. Probably reasons similar to why I don't work at FAANG ;P
I think we don't disagree for reasons other than raw money about why working somewhere other than FAANG would be good. Probably reasons similar to why I don't work at FAANG ;P
That's exactly what the commenter's point was.
> I would estimate Sr. or better is possible for someone who is able to independently run a OSS project.
I don't believe that's a correct assumption. It's been a while but: https://techcrunch.com/2008/01/01/zed-shaw-puts-the-smack-do...
I don't believe that's a correct assumption. It's been a while but: https://techcrunch.com/2008/01/01/zed-shaw-puts-the-smack-do...
This was very sad to read...
If I'd take $100K and move back to my country, I'd have the lifestyle 99% of devs in SV could only dream of. It wouldn't even come to my mind that I would want to work for FAANG.
$100k gives you a really nice lifestyle anywhere in Europe.
Before or after taxes?
$100K before taxes would leave about half of it in most countries in Europe.
Just for the context,that's what I could afford back home in the capital: https://m.aruodas.lt/namu-nuoma-vilniuje-antakalnyje-bistryc...
Just for the context,that's what I could afford back home in the capital: https://m.aruodas.lt/namu-nuoma-vilniuje-antakalnyje-bistryc...
After taxes even (source: I work from a rural part of France. Some years I've earned less, most years a lot more).
So then how much is $100k before taxes?
You can't compare US taxes to EU taxes. Paying these (taxes and social contibutions) you also get something in exchange: free public medical care, free education, state pension, various safety nets. Although quality and amount depends on country.
[deleted]
after taxes
In Denmark after taxes you would probably have about 329,000+ dkk, which yes, that is a pretty good half a middle class couple. So you can take care of half a family on that reasonably, not astoundingly great, but quite reasonable.
on edit: actually looking at wages in Denmark I see I am somehow doing a lot better than I thought, which is pretty much amazing to me considering how badly I thought I was doing. Since I am making about that amount after taxes. hmm.
on edit: actually looking at wages in Denmark I see I am somehow doing a lot better than I thought, which is pretty much amazing to me considering how badly I thought I was doing. Since I am making about that amount after taxes. hmm.
Eh, I live in Sweden and I make around that much before taxes and me and my wife could manage with just my paycheck if we really had to. That's with a mortgage on a house, two cars, and a four year old kid.
I doubt the cost of living in Denmark is that much higher than Sweden, so I'd say you're living beyond your means if you can't make it work on 329K DKK after tax...
I doubt the cost of living in Denmark is that much higher than Sweden, so I'd say you're living beyond your means if you can't make it work on 329K DKK after tax...
Have you been to copenhagen? If u’d head out to eat you won’t find anything for less than 500 SEK/pp unless u want fast food. Drinks are cheap though :)
No, I've never been to Denmark at all. That sounds really expensive. Not even Stockholm is that expensive (I live 60 KM south of Stockholm).
If you go out to eat there at a normal place, it'll be more like 300-400 SEK (~280 DKK) per person including 1-2 alcoholic beverages.
If you go out to eat there at a normal place, it'll be more like 300-400 SEK (~280 DKK) per person including 1-2 alcoholic beverages.
Denmark is more expensive but ultimately it'd depend on the area and so on.
Except major cities like London, Paris, Dublin where it is somewhere around 'table stakes'.
You must be kidding. $100k a year is more than enough to not think about money (for one person) in all European cities, including London. Except if you suck at personal finance and spend all your money for unnecessary things.
So is it enough to not think about it or not enough so that you must think about it to not spend unnecessarily
It's enough that you don't have to worry about your ability to save money. It doesn't mean you never have to think about money at all.
When I moved to London I was surprised how low salaries were, even after factoring in social services like the NHS. 100K USD (80,000GBP) is a very good salary there.
When I moved to London I was surprised how low salaries were, even after factoring in social services like the NHS. 100K USD (80,000GBP) is a very good salary there.
If you have more than a single child of school age, £90k in London is not that much. Two kids at a private school in Northern England will run you £30k, I imagine in London it will be a tad more.
Sure, you wouldn't send them to private school on that income. But it's far from a necessity; <10% of kids are privately educated.
Never mind private schools, housing costs go through the roof if you want them to have their own room or, god forbid, a garden. Not to mention nursery fees if you both need to work to cover the mortgage and bills.
I explitliy mentioned: for one person. Of course, if you want to raise a family with private schols and a big house in the middle of London, that won't work. But let's not twist my words here.
> I explitliy mentioned: for one person.
1950 called, they want their mononuclear family stereotypes back.
1950 called, they want their mononuclear family stereotypes back.
[deleted]
I've lived and worked in two of those cities (and one other almost as expensive european city) for much less than $100k/year. It's a pretty comfortable lifestyle from about $50k upwards.
Sure, if you are happy living like a student. If you want to own a place in a reasonable part of town? If you want to be able to have a child? If you don't want to have to rely on two incomes to pay the mortgage? I didn't say it wasn't possible to live on that, only that that kind of salary was table stakes in those cities i.e. it's adequate but hardly living like a king.
Personally I can think of a plenty of other places I'd rather live in where you could truly live well on that kind of money.
Source: I live in the first of those on a similar salary.
Personally I can think of a plenty of other places I'd rather live in where you could truly live well on that kind of money.
Source: I live in the first of those on a similar salary.
There's a world of a difference between living like a student and owning property in a reasonable part of Dublin/London. a €45,000 salary (which is roughly $50k) is definitely a comfortable, non student lifestyle. It's not going to buy you a decent house in Dublin, but it's a comfortable lifestyle, and more than adequate.
€45,000 does sound a bit low. I lived on €40,000 (after taxes, rent was only 8-10% of the yearly income) in Croatia and lived like a king (travelling, restaurants, buying stuff without worrying about the price, massive amounts of good quality food).
Moving to any other major European city would require me to at least double the income to maintain my standards.
Moving to any other major European city would require me to at least double the income to maintain my standards.
can you share what are the taxes for 100K/year? And then the basic costs like housing and groceries? what about vacations?
https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php - take home on $100k in England is about £55,000 ($68k) and london living costs are https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/London.
https://ie.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php Says take home on $100k in ireland is ballpark €55,000 ($62k), and living costs are here - https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Dublin -
https://ie.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php Says take home on $100k in ireland is ballpark €55,000 ($62k), and living costs are here - https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Dublin -
$100K before taxes is decent salary in London. It's not a lot a lot but that's what a senior developer would make in most companies (excluding financial sector+ some extremely funded shops). Would you stop worrying about money? No,of course not.But you could afford to live in decent area,drive normal car,have some nice holidays in pretty places + put some aside for rainy day.Of course,this is London,so no matter what kind of money you make, there's always someone making x10 times that. But isn't that's the case anywhere?
£80k income puts you in the top 2% of the UK. Something that 98% of people (lower in London but not vastly lower) manage without can hardly be called "table stakes".
Yes HN is weird like that. Every time salaries are discussed people jump out with comments like : " 100k yearly after tax? That would merely serve you to live in a rented room and eating just ramen every-day".Then you go check and that kind of income is like top 3% , so either they are bullshitting or capitalist societies are in a dramatic state.
> Yes HN is weird like that. Every time salaries are discussed people jump out with comments like : " 100k yearly after tax? That would merely serve you to live in a rented room and eating just ramen every-day"
This one isnt really HN alone. Mostly just extremely privileged developers without much perspective.
This one isnt really HN alone. Mostly just extremely privileged developers without much perspective.
At current exchange rates, $100k is about £80k or €88k.
In the UK that pre-tax income would put you well in the 95th percentile.
Post-tax the 97th percentile.
In the UK that pre-tax income would put you well in the 95th percentile.
Post-tax the 97th percentile.
[deleted]
You think that initially. But vacation costs the same or everyone and you also wanna splurge too. Appliances cost same, building costs slowly approach rest of Europe.
I make $400k a year on a side project. I can do no work on it at all and still make $400k this year because the money is residual. It took 5 years to get to this point. The first 18 months, I made $0.
I could sell this side project for $1M easily.
I could grow it if I want to and make $500k next year.
I could write a blog and grow my personal brand on how I made this side project.
There are lots of opportunities this side project has opened up that working at my SV eng job can't provide.
I could sell this side project for $1M easily.
I could grow it if I want to and make $500k next year.
I could write a blog and grow my personal brand on how I made this side project.
There are lots of opportunities this side project has opened up that working at my SV eng job can't provide.
If you don't mind can I ask whats your side project
I'm assuming its this: http://www.castingcall.club
Happy for you & thanks for sharing, not sure what the purpose or point is though... Side projects are great in terms of opportunities but although all you mention is the money that's generally the least common benefit they have.
Any pro tips on growing your customer base? Did you do all the 'selling' yourself? Did you hire someone to help you with that?
I am in the same situation as you in your first 18 months. Got a product, need to get eyeballs and customers!
I am in the same situation as you in your first 18 months. Got a product, need to get eyeballs and customers!
Would you mind sharing your side project? That's awesome.
Why do you feel the necessity to compare with Silicon Valley Salary? $100k is an amazing amount of money in pretty much everywhere else on Earth.
I made significantly more than this working in SV. IMO it's totally fair to say $100k is "not even close" for certain roles in certain companies.
But then I moved. I'm here to tell you, the Bay Area has a quality of life problem that far exceeds the cost of living difference.
After moving, my monthly _mortgage_ payment is almost $1k less than the rent I was paying for a not-so-nice house in San Jose. When I run the numbers on my current house (considering only the property and not the HOA), trying to find something comparable around San Jose, I come up with around $10 million at a minimum. When you consider the HOA I live in - we have 20 miles of maintained trails and an HOA park almost every mile - the quality of the schools, the quality and cost of restaurants... the list goes on... this quality of life literally can't be purchased in the Bay Area for a software engineers salary, no matter what they do. And here is the thing: after moving I could take an 80% pay cut over my Bay Area salary and maintain this quality of living changing _nothing_ about my spending habits.
But money aside, I'm actually happy after moving. In the Bay Area I binged, ate, drank, and smoked every night. I put on weight, my mental and physical health was deteriorating. I was depressed. I felt like every time I left the house someone was trying to trick me out of my money. I saw societal decay at every corner, homelessness, unmaintained property, crumbling infrastructure. I felt it was the least progressive place I've ever lived and it made me feel guilty that I could afford to stay slightly above the decay. The Bay Area is a place that required significant effort for me to be happy and that wasn't possible when investing significant effort into maintaining my high salary job.
My advice to folks living in the Bay Area: take stock of why you are there. If the answer is a paycheck, I find it very hard to believe it's worth it after my experience.
But then I moved. I'm here to tell you, the Bay Area has a quality of life problem that far exceeds the cost of living difference.
After moving, my monthly _mortgage_ payment is almost $1k less than the rent I was paying for a not-so-nice house in San Jose. When I run the numbers on my current house (considering only the property and not the HOA), trying to find something comparable around San Jose, I come up with around $10 million at a minimum. When you consider the HOA I live in - we have 20 miles of maintained trails and an HOA park almost every mile - the quality of the schools, the quality and cost of restaurants... the list goes on... this quality of life literally can't be purchased in the Bay Area for a software engineers salary, no matter what they do. And here is the thing: after moving I could take an 80% pay cut over my Bay Area salary and maintain this quality of living changing _nothing_ about my spending habits.
But money aside, I'm actually happy after moving. In the Bay Area I binged, ate, drank, and smoked every night. I put on weight, my mental and physical health was deteriorating. I was depressed. I felt like every time I left the house someone was trying to trick me out of my money. I saw societal decay at every corner, homelessness, unmaintained property, crumbling infrastructure. I felt it was the least progressive place I've ever lived and it made me feel guilty that I could afford to stay slightly above the decay. The Bay Area is a place that required significant effort for me to be happy and that wasn't possible when investing significant effort into maintaining my high salary job.
My advice to folks living in the Bay Area: take stock of why you are there. If the answer is a paycheck, I find it very hard to believe it's worth it after my experience.
>$100k is still not even close to how much you can make in SV as an engineer
Oh, well then fuck this idiot, right? What a dumbass loser - doesn't even realize they can be a s i l i c o n v a l l e y e n g i n e e r and make a lot of money.
Jesus it's so exhausting reading the knee-jerk "SV engineers make more money" reaction to everything. You know what this person has that 99.999% of all SV engineers will never have? Complete freedom. You know what else this person has that 99% of all SV engineers will never have? The option not to have live in San Francisco, a dismal place that very few people want to actually be in anymore.
Oh, well then fuck this idiot, right? What a dumbass loser - doesn't even realize they can be a s i l i c o n v a l l e y e n g i n e e r and make a lot of money.
Jesus it's so exhausting reading the knee-jerk "SV engineers make more money" reaction to everything. You know what this person has that 99.999% of all SV engineers will never have? Complete freedom. You know what else this person has that 99% of all SV engineers will never have? The option not to have live in San Francisco, a dismal place that very few people want to actually be in anymore.
Please don't post like this to HN. You broke this site guideline so flagrantly that I can't quite believe my eyes:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
... since the parent comment already made the same point, in the part you didn't bother to quote.
Also, please don't post in the flamewar style to HN generally. It's not what this site is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
... since the parent comment already made the same point, in the part you didn't bother to quote.
Also, please don't post in the flamewar style to HN generally. It's not what this site is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I actually really want to live in San Francisco, but I don't want to and am not smart enough to work for a FAANG-type company. It's one of the few American cities where you can be a first-class citizen without owning a car and comfortably bike/walk everywhere year-round. SF has a really fascinating history and cool culture. I wish it was possible to work in academia there without already being wealthy.
I've lived in many US cities, including SF, and your characterization rings hollow for me. Unless you're focusing exclusively on climate, SF without a car isn't all that much better than dozens of other cities. Notably, unless you live near a BART stop, most transit commutes are going to involve some bus, switching to a separate system, 30+ minutes daily commute, $12+ round trip, etc. Or paying for rideshares. Dozens of cities in the US have the equivalent or better, without all the other associated baggage of SF. Here are a few examples I've lived or spent significant time in:
- Chicago, IL: The L reaches a lot more neighborhoods, is a single integrated transit system. - Columbus, OH: Great bike lanes and dedicated paths, bus system that covers the entire city. - New York, NY: By far the most walkable city in the US. - Philadelphia, PA: Decent subway system, good connection to NJ and NY via NJ Transit. Very walkable core and neighborhoods. - Washington, DC: Far superior version of BART with a lot more coverage.
Unless I've just happened across a half dozen of the best cities in the US, SF isn't all that remarkable.
- Chicago, IL: The L reaches a lot more neighborhoods, is a single integrated transit system. - Columbus, OH: Great bike lanes and dedicated paths, bus system that covers the entire city. - New York, NY: By far the most walkable city in the US. - Philadelphia, PA: Decent subway system, good connection to NJ and NY via NJ Transit. Very walkable core and neighborhoods. - Washington, DC: Far superior version of BART with a lot more coverage.
Unless I've just happened across a half dozen of the best cities in the US, SF isn't all that remarkable.
I do love NYC, Chicago, and Philly, but I've always wanted to avoid winter entirely as I get pretty severe SAD. San Francisco seems like the only walkable city where that's possible.
That's fair. I imagine that there are parts of LA that are similarly walkable, but it's not like LA is immune to the problems SF has, and it has unique problems of its own.
There are bound to be some pretty cool places in AZ, NM, TX, and the southeast. I've been casually researching this topic for a while, and I've found it to be incredibly difficult to find a useful, non-biased index of walkable and interesting neighborhoods from all corners of the US.
Good luck!
There are bound to be some pretty cool places in AZ, NM, TX, and the southeast. I've been casually researching this topic for a while, and I've found it to be incredibly difficult to find a useful, non-biased index of walkable and interesting neighborhoods from all corners of the US.
Good luck!
"am not smart enough to work for a FAANG-type company"
Have you tried to apply for a job? Don't underestimate yourself. I had the same thoughts about myself, then I tried an interview just for fun. Now I'm working for a FAANG company, moved to Canada, and having the best year of my life.
Have you tried to apply for a job? Don't underestimate yourself. I had the same thoughts about myself, then I tried an interview just for fun. Now I'm working for a FAANG company, moved to Canada, and having the best year of my life.
I could also make much more money in SV. I like working from home in a smallish (150k) town in the northwest. I hate traffic. I hate commutes. I hate $5000/month apartments :)
> The option not to have live in San Francisco, a dismal place that very few people want to actually be in anymore.
Dismal? Lol I love it here. People are moving out of cities all over the country because of coronavirus, sure, but only because most of the perks of city living are non-existent right now. I know a couple people moving and they're not going far, because of the nearby available amenities, that being excellent cycling and motorcycling roads, great mountain biking trails, climbing rocks, whatever water sports you could want...
Never quite got the hate. It's good weather and a great region.
Dismal? Lol I love it here. People are moving out of cities all over the country because of coronavirus, sure, but only because most of the perks of city living are non-existent right now. I know a couple people moving and they're not going far, because of the nearby available amenities, that being excellent cycling and motorcycling roads, great mountain biking trails, climbing rocks, whatever water sports you could want...
Never quite got the hate. It's good weather and a great region.
It's a great city in a beautiful location... but if you come from another developed country or a part of the US where homelessness is very uncommon, it's extremely shocking to see people camping on the streets pretty much all over the city, it feels like you're in a shanty town and it feels unsafe.
I could see that if you came from somewhere where homelessness is uncommon, but something that shocked me on a recent roadtrip was how common homelessness is now. It seemed EVERY town we stopped in, except for the extremely remote or tiny, had camps or at the very least people looking worse-for-the-wear at street corners with a sign. I expect the painkiller epidemic combined with covid is not doing great things to this country.
Smell the streets at 3am
Er, yea, it's a city lol. If you want to live in the woods, you can do that and still be a 30 minute drive from the city here.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say that doing open source gives you "complete freedom". In some way, you are responsible to your contributors / users and they are kind of paying your bills.
His first sentence was just setting the context and not meant to be pejorative.
wow! did you read the rest of my comment?
You also don't need to live in the expensive SV area.
Yeah, not having to live in SV is going to save you a lot of money. Github sponsors don't care where you live; they just care about what you made.
Median home cost in Nebraska $168,900.
Median home cost in California $552,800.
Yeah I think 100k a year would go a little farther in one of these places than the other...
Yeah I think 100k a year would go a little farther in one of these places than the other...
Don't forget that California is a big state and a lot of it is not very populated or popular. A house in the bay or LA will probably run you a lot more than that.
The difference is even more pronounced. A very nice house in Nebraska is well under 300K but out of reach of almost all in most of California. Why you would live in either Nebraska or California though is up for debate...
This.
In most parts of the world, $100k/year allows you to live very comfortably indeed.
In most parts of the world, $100k/year allows you to live very comfortably indeed.
Yes but the author is American So he'll always have to pay US taxes even if he moves out of the US.(I'm aware about tax treaties but in most cases they still have to pay the difference)
Most places inside the US allow you to live a comfy life with 100k/year too. No need to be in Silicon Valley.
Yes but being American he will be double taxed living outside of the US.
You can exclude the first $107.6k/year from US taxes.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
this is not true.
It is true depending on the country he lives in. As he's a US citizen, even if he lives overseas he needs to fill in a W-9 form to get the money from GitHub.
He can spend $300/month in many parts of Europe, get good healthcare. Even with paying some taxes to support the US billionaires, he'll live a very good life. In SV for that money he'd have to climb over zombies to go get the groceries
Is GitHub sponsors considered as Salary though? Might have some tax breaks if that is not the case.
It may depend on what country you're in, but in the US if you're just some rando, "donations" are still taxable income. The form GitHub sends you for filling purposes is the same one used for contractors.
You only need to pay tax back to the US on your earnings > $100k/year
If the earnings are made outside of the US then he doesn't pay tax on less than 100k. The earnings are in the US so he would need to pay, he still has to fill in a W9 form as he's a US citizen.
Am I reading right that average rent is somewhere around $2500 (roughly £2000)?
You'll see wild swings in these numbers depending on how specific you're being about the type of place being rented and even between services doing the reporting.
Here's a March 2019 article from CBS bay area (based on data from the rental site Zumper):
"Median 1-Bedroom Rent In San Francisco Soars To Nearly $3,700 A Month"
"Elsewhere in the Bay Area, San Jose’s median rent for a one-bedroom was $2,540 (5th highest in the country), while in Oakland it was $2,320 (9th highest)."
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/03/05/median-1-bedroo...
Here's a March 2019 article from CBS bay area (based on data from the rental site Zumper):
"Median 1-Bedroom Rent In San Francisco Soars To Nearly $3,700 A Month"
"Elsewhere in the Bay Area, San Jose’s median rent for a one-bedroom was $2,540 (5th highest in the country), while in Oakland it was $2,320 (9th highest)."
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/03/05/median-1-bedroo...
That would be on the expensive side of renting a room, and on the very cheap side for a place to yourself.
That sounds low, but I guess it includes areas well outside of San Francisco? All the apartments in SF and nearby seem to start around the high $3000s
Also, I don't think he would like to spend a year solving LeetCode problems in order to pass those SV interviews.
... this way he doesn't need to live in SV. Or California. Or the USA.
Given that he lives somewhere around Buffalo, NY, the cost of living is about twice as much[1] to maintain his standard of living in SV, so I would say he's doing pretty well, and he gets to do what he loves!
1: https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-calculator/compare...
1: https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-calculator/compare...
yeah, but this engineer doesn't have to live in SV.
I am sure the HN crowd is probably aware of compensation at tech companies in general, especially in SV>
I am sure the HN crowd is probably aware of compensation at tech companies in general, especially in SV>
[deleted]
At his current revenue growth rate, he will likely surpass $200k in the next 12 months with very little additional effort.
Couldn't agree more. Plus open source work is so fulfilling and love the feeling when people praise your work
Not everyone lives in California! :)
Even at FAANGS, the salary for the same role at the same level can be significantly lower outside of California ... not just a couple of percent, but I've heard reports of 60% difference between e.g. San Francisco and London for just someone moving offices.
Even at FAANGS, the salary for the same role at the same level can be significantly lower outside of California ... not just a couple of percent, but I've heard reports of 60% difference between e.g. San Francisco and London for just someone moving offices.
I've worked on my own from home for the last 20 years. Would not trade it for any full time employee position. And thought of being in FAANG makes me shudder
Had you read the article, you would've know he was making ~90k in 2018.
What is average pay for a software developer in SV with 10 years experience?
https://www.levels.fyi/Salaries/Software-Engineer/San-Franci... (the top graph does not appear to let you filter by YoE, but you can look at what everyone has put.
You can easily get a comfy job with $350k
indeed.com puts the average software engineer with 10 years experience in silicon valley at $141k [0]
I think you have a very skewed view of "easily"
[0] https://www.indeed.com/career/software-engineer/salaries/Sil...
[0] https://www.indeed.com/career/software-engineer/salaries/Sil...
That sounds like base salary. Most compensation in SV comes in the form of stock.
A senior at google makes 170kish in salary and another 130-150k in stock.
A senior at google makes 170kish in salary and another 130-150k in stock.
This is true, but a senior at google is nothing like the median senior in the valley.
This is the problem with level.fyi; it's good information but too many people point at it and say "look how much software engineers make in the valley". This isn't even close to representative.
It's a bit like looking at biglaw salaries in NYC and saying "look how much lawyers make".
This is the problem with level.fyi; it's good information but too many people point at it and say "look how much software engineers make in the valley". This isn't even close to representative.
It's a bit like looking at biglaw salaries in NYC and saying "look how much lawyers make".
> indeed.com puts the average software engineer in silicon valley at $112k with a $5k bonus per year
That figure or the number you edited it to at $141k, is on the low side. The median software developer in the US is at ~$110,000. The top 10% bracket starts at around $165,000.
Emphasis that $110k figure is median, average is higher. The average software developer in SV with 10 years of experience is going to be a lot closer to $200k or over.
That figure or the number you edited it to at $141k, is on the low side. The median software developer in the US is at ~$110,000. The top 10% bracket starts at around $165,000.
Emphasis that $110k figure is median, average is higher. The average software developer in SV with 10 years of experience is going to be a lot closer to $200k or over.
Mean salary isn't a very useful number if the distribution isn't close to normal; Without all the data it's hard to be sure - but that plausibly seems to be the case for SV salaries. Certainly matches my personal networks experience (sample biased as that may be).
Where did you get that 110k figure, by the way? That sounds very high for me for a median across all US software. Maybe California specific?
Where did you get that 110k figure, by the way? That sounds very high for me for a median across all US software. Maybe California specific?
I haven't checked the data and I'm not sure why you're being downvoted since you don't seem to be breaking any of HN code of conduct.
That said, isn't median a better measure in this context, though? There can be a set of salaries that skews the average by a significant amounts, but most receive ~110k$
That said, isn't median a better measure in this context, though? There can be a set of salaries that skews the average by a significant amounts, but most receive ~110k$
"easily"?
Yes it's a numbers game. Apply for as much job as possible and ask for a minimum of $200k base. With a little bit of back and forth you can settle for $180k and then get a lot of equity.
Also maybe more leisurely in terms of pace.
znpy(1)
Since people are showing interest in GitHub Sponsors, I just wanted to mention: The types of services listed in the article likely falls under VAT in specific regions which can be a pain to calculate. That's one of the reasons I'm sticking with Patreon; they handle tax and chargebacks so the fee isn't a big deal. GitHub Sponsors explicitly says the tax is all on you. They don't mention chargebacks in their docs so it's hard to say, if they're processing the payment on their end, I'd guess they handle it.
https://help.github.com/en/github/supporting-the-open-source...
https://help.github.com/en/github/supporting-the-open-source...
I honestly think that platforms like Github and Patreon is the future of universal basic income. I think as labor becomes deprecated due to globalization and automation, more and more people are going to quit their jobs and pursue more creative and meaningful endeavors.
Obviously in the beginning, power law will take into effect where a few people will have enough income to thrive in these platforms. I do think that these platforms will eventually have more features like pooled donation, say you could donate to a collective of creators that you care about, will lead to significant portion of the economy to more meaningful work.
Obviously in the beginning, power law will take into effect where a few people will have enough income to thrive in these platforms. I do think that these platforms will eventually have more features like pooled donation, say you could donate to a collective of creators that you care about, will lead to significant portion of the economy to more meaningful work.
Proprietary rent seekers injecting themselves into paying for services so they can creme 5-20% off the top of all the money movement.
Its basically the same thing credit cards do, but are more egregious because they also try to platform the creators. So you integrate them into one proprietary space you wholly control and can thus dominate industries by managing the purse.
Its what almost every successful business nowadays does. Capture an audience and then shake down whatever they are coming to your platform for while holding the market ransom. Facebook and Google do this with advertisers, app / game stores with their 30% cuts, etc.
Its basically the same thing credit cards do, but are more egregious because they also try to platform the creators. So you integrate them into one proprietary space you wholly control and can thus dominate industries by managing the purse.
Its what almost every successful business nowadays does. Capture an audience and then shake down whatever they are coming to your platform for while holding the market ransom. Facebook and Google do this with advertisers, app / game stores with their 30% cuts, etc.
It's always great to read of someone making a living from what they love and a community supporting each other.
Google should hire people like this.
Wouldn't it be awesome if developer talent was judged on the impact of one's open source projects / contributions versus leetcode competency?
Yeah, I know - it'll never happen.
Wouldn't it be awesome if developer talent was judged on the impact of one's open source projects / contributions versus leetcode competency?
Yeah, I know - it'll never happen.
Ignoring the fact that the majority of the source code is not open sourced and that "impact" biggest variable is going to be chance.
Impact of one open source project measure slightly more than developer talent. It is a combination of a lot of skills, development skill just one among other like marketing, business sense, ability to make video, ... Extreme example would be Zuckerberg: is he the best developer in the world and wouldn't you waste a bit his potential if you hired him as a PHP dev?
And in any case, impact is always going to be a star system. You are going to have a tiny percentage of developers (like a few thousands in the world) that have impact and all the other that have 0. You are back to square one at trying to find a way to differentiate between a loser that can code and another loser that cannot.
Impact of one open source project measure slightly more than developer talent. It is a combination of a lot of skills, development skill just one among other like marketing, business sense, ability to make video, ... Extreme example would be Zuckerberg: is he the best developer in the world and wouldn't you waste a bit his potential if you hired him as a PHP dev?
And in any case, impact is always going to be a star system. You are going to have a tiny percentage of developers (like a few thousands in the world) that have impact and all the other that have 0. You are back to square one at trying to find a way to differentiate between a loser that can code and another loser that cannot.
Everyone wants to hire engineers like this.
The problem is that developers like this are very very rare. They are superstars who can code and build communities.
It doesn't happen because there aren't enough candidates.
The problem is that developers like this are very very rare. They are superstars who can code and build communities.
It doesn't happen because there aren't enough candidates.
Wow, that's a huge inspiration.
I've been sitting on GitHub sponsorship setup for htmx, but this motivates me to get that done. It would be amazing to work on a passion project and get paid for it.
I've been sitting on GitHub sponsorship setup for htmx, but this motivates me to get that done. It would be amazing to work on a passion project and get paid for it.
I have a bunch of projects which seem to be popular, and a lot of followers. Income received via sponsorship? €0.
I think a lot depends on luck, and the kind of repositories you manage/create. Some projects are obviously more commercially useful than others, and those are the easier ones to receive income from.
https://github.com/skx/
I think a lot depends on luck, and the kind of repositories you manage/create. Some projects are obviously more commercially useful than others, and those are the easier ones to receive income from.
https://github.com/skx/
yeah, like most technical stuff it seems like a lottery ticket, but if it's a lottery ticket that costs almost $0 it's worth at least setting it up...
Thank you for xen-tools and xen-shell :)
[deleted]
wow kudos, I also find it generous that github takes no cut on this giving that they offer the service.
Some people here are comparing with the pay at FAANG, you'll have to factor in the satisfaction of seeing your own ideas coming to fruition and the fact that you are free to do whatever the hell you want, anytime, anywhere. Is that worth the 200k+ difference? maybe, maybe not, it's up to you.
> A few weeks later I added a new “private” group of screencasts for GitHub sponsors only. THIS is the secret sauce.
The secret sauce is selling a product (in this case courses/training), and using GitHub sponsors as a payment gateway.
It’s great, but it’s not really sponsorship.
If you’re a dev with a popular open source project, you can profit by selling related training/courses. A lot of devs are probably leaving money on the table.
The secret sauce is selling a product (in this case courses/training), and using GitHub sponsors as a payment gateway.
It’s great, but it’s not really sponsorship.
If you’re a dev with a popular open source project, you can profit by selling related training/courses. A lot of devs are probably leaving money on the table.
This is a success story for GitHub sponsors and I hope it will eventually become the norm and not a unicorn example. We are nowhere near this level with OpenFaaS and with a high level of churn.
I also have a slight concern about the author’s sales tax liability in territories such as the US and the EU. Economic nexus is real, take a look at paddle.com if you want to know more. GitHub doesn’t collect sales tax - so you shouldn’t be selling any taxable benefits FWIW.
My strategy so far has to turn the program into a weekly Insiders Update on the OSS projects I maintain along with regular feature length content on the industry and software.
There’s around 130-140 individuals, I’d like to see that get to double the number. As for companies that use OpenFaaS in production, they do not pay any form of sponsorship or support.
https://github.com/sponsors/alexellis
I also have a slight concern about the author’s sales tax liability in territories such as the US and the EU. Economic nexus is real, take a look at paddle.com if you want to know more. GitHub doesn’t collect sales tax - so you shouldn’t be selling any taxable benefits FWIW.
My strategy so far has to turn the program into a weekly Insiders Update on the OSS projects I maintain along with regular feature length content on the industry and software.
There’s around 130-140 individuals, I’d like to see that get to double the number. As for companies that use OpenFaaS in production, they do not pay any form of sponsorship or support.
https://github.com/sponsors/alexellis
[deleted]
Step 1: create a repo with 4K stars...
Did a quick Google, looks like that comes to $2800. A small investment for 100k a year.
https://gimhub.com/shop/buy-github-stars/
https://gimhub.com/shop/buy-github-stars/
Well, yes. Isn't it great to know that if you happen to create a repo with 4k stars it is possible to get something out of it besides random people hate?
Or have several k Twitter followers ...
The payment scheme of the future will be something where a digital product is created and then kept locked up until it’s unlocked by Kickstarter style fundraising. Each individual person gets something they want (the digital product) in exchange for their money, just like before. But under this model, everything might be open source by default, the product only costs society what it is worth (unlike current digital products like movies and songs) and the convoluted nightmare of drm and each-tv-network-has-their-own-subscription-service can finally die.
I have a few NPM packages that get millions of downloads per week. I collect about $5.50 US per month from Patreon and exactly $0 US from Github sponsors. I still consider that $5.50 a win.
Stallman was right story once again, huh?
He argued that the best way to monetize libre software is to sell training/education and 80% of OP's income come from the educational screen-casts.
Maybe the lesson here is that if you want to earn money from libre software you have to learn how to create and sell training. I think this model is really beautiful — everyone wins: good software, good training material, strong communities and respect everyone's freedoms!
He argued that the best way to monetize libre software is to sell training/education and 80% of OP's income come from the educational screen-casts.
Maybe the lesson here is that if you want to earn money from libre software you have to learn how to create and sell training. I think this model is really beautiful — everyone wins: good software, good training material, strong communities and respect everyone's freedoms!
Congratulations. Nicely done.
Also you've mentioned github sponsors. Did not know about that program. It is severely restricted by small list of countries. Seems unfair as so many people contribute through github but looks like large chunk is unable to apply for this type of sponsorship because of location. Frankly I am quite disappointed with such policy.
Also you've mentioned github sponsors. Did not know about that program. It is severely restricted by small list of countries. Seems unfair as so many people contribute through github but looks like large chunk is unable to apply for this type of sponsorship because of location. Frankly I am quite disappointed with such policy.
This is great, for a couple of reasons. One is that it works! I’m delighted for you.
Second is that I haven’t heard of livewire because I work in a different area. This suggests that more folks will be able to do the same (admittedly livewire is in a popular space — which makes meeting this threshold harder, so congrats again)
Second is that I haven’t heard of livewire because I work in a different area. This suggests that more folks will be able to do the same (admittedly livewire is in a popular space — which makes meeting this threshold harder, so congrats again)
It's inspiring to see that oss can provide a comparable income to the more traditional software engineering career path. It looks like some salesmanship is required, I wonder if there's some service out there that takes care of that aspect to help oss projects to find sponsors?
Happy for you. Real talent deserves recognition. Thank you for everything you do. Keep up the good work.
Kudos!
I've been doing OSS for twenty years, and never made a dime.
Qualifier: Never wanted to. It's always been a labor of love.
Even when I have done a bit of commercial work (outside of what I did as a 9-5), I open-source that work, as well.
I like doing OSS. I take pride in my craft, and like having it out there.
I've been doing OSS for twenty years, and never made a dime.
Qualifier: Never wanted to. It's always been a labor of love.
Even when I have done a bit of commercial work (outside of what I did as a 9-5), I open-source that work, as well.
I like doing OSS. I take pride in my craft, and like having it out there.
I love his idea, the problem I have is that I hate github. Would it work outside of Github?
This feels like a good place to mention the https://bytepack.io/ service that Jose Valim created. It's goal is to help with this type of thing.
>"A few weeks later I added a new “private” group of screencasts for GitHub sponsors only.
[ screenshot of a video being restricted to sponsors only ]
THIS is the secret sauce."
[ screenshot of a video being restricted to sponsors only ]
THIS is the secret sauce."
The next thing he could do was make a book out of his various projects and get some passive income. This is a really great and uplifting story!
Fascinating story.
About the project: is it basically a PHP library?
About the project: is it basically a PHP library?
What I’m confused about is how the Sponsorware is operationalized for people on the paid tier.
How do you only release to people on your sponsor list?
How do you only release to people on your sponsor list?
Off-topic question: Is Livewire comparable with RShiny, and is there anything that would let me do what Livewire does in python?
Nice! I'm also already at 2$/month.
numpy was the first project that I came across that used a similar technique to fund the development. The numpy book was available exclusively to funders until the early development was paid for. Travis Oliphant, the author of numpy and of the guide, went on to found Anaconda (Continuum Analytics).
Congrats! Inspiring to see that you can make a living on your own without coding within a corporate structure.
This is a really exciting project, can't wait to try it out. I love Laravel. Amazing job.
Congrats dude! Living the dream!
Been following you and your progress on twitter for a while
Been following you and your progress on twitter for a while
How much would this person make if working at a big tech company?
"Sponsorware" - it feel like open sourced shareware
Congratulations :)
This is really inspiring and motivating for doing OSS work.
This is really inspiring and motivating for doing OSS work.
Good work :). That's awesome.
That was a nice reading experience
Any advise for a developer with disabilities who failed hard getting most of her projects out of 1-10 users phase if any?
anyone tried running ads on their open source repos?
Congratulations!
Nice, awesome achievement!
since there's no such thing as a small advice - I'd appreciate a review of my sponsor page :-) https://github.com/sponsors/jcelerier
Hi Jean,
I'm trying not to make this sound as a generic LinkedIn business advice, but get a better profile picture. Maybe a picture of you in front of one of the art pieces. Something that gives me an impression of who you are and what kind of art you collaborate in.
It may sound stupid, but first impressions do really matter, even on Github. A dark, blurry picture of you drinking beer does not give a good impression.
I'm trying not to make this sound as a generic LinkedIn business advice, but get a better profile picture. Maybe a picture of you in front of one of the art pieces. Something that gives me an impression of who you are and what kind of art you collaborate in.
It may sound stupid, but first impressions do really matter, even on Github. A dark, blurry picture of you drinking beer does not give a good impression.
This. Oh my god this. I can't believe people put up a TikTok-value photo on a professional site and wonder why they aren't getting 6 figure offers - no matter how technical they are.
> I can't believe people put up a TikTok-value photo on a professional site
That's interesting - for the longest time, for me Github wasn't anything related to the professional world, just a website to put the hobby OSS projects or uni group projects on. Things have obviously changed - it's nice to get a reality check regarding it.
That's interesting - for the longest time, for me Github wasn't anything related to the professional world, just a website to put the hobby OSS projects or uni group projects on. Things have obviously changed - it's nice to get a reality check regarding it.
I'll join in as well! Please roast my profile here: https://github.com/sponsors/YorickPeterse
these tend to come off like humble brags a bit considering working on the right thing at the right time is a big factor
How so? They took the time to share their story and itemize and outline the whole approach for anyone to read.
Of course it's anecdotal and YMMV but to dismiss all the hard work and clear demand (people are paying) for the work by saying timing is a "big factor"? That seems unfair.
Of course timing matters in all things, but all the timing in the world won't help if you don't put in the work, or build something that people want.
Before someone points out an exception to the above, of course there are exceptions and people who get luckier than most, but this doesn't come across that way to me at all, and sharing the journey and the learnings is not something they had to do.
Of course it's anecdotal and YMMV but to dismiss all the hard work and clear demand (people are paying) for the work by saying timing is a "big factor"? That seems unfair.
Of course timing matters in all things, but all the timing in the world won't help if you don't put in the work, or build something that people want.
Before someone points out an exception to the above, of course there are exceptions and people who get luckier than most, but this doesn't come across that way to me at all, and sharing the journey and the learnings is not something they had to do.
[deleted]
Believing that everything is just luck is a great way to make sure you never encounter any.
It sounds like in his case, the biggest factors were:
1) Writing some software people need
2) Being very entrepreneurial / thinking of and trying different tactics to get people to sponsor him
There‘a a bit of luck in the equation, but not a lot.
1) Writing some software people need
2) Being very entrepreneurial / thinking of and trying different tactics to get people to sponsor him
There‘a a bit of luck in the equation, but not a lot.
Yes, picking the right thing to work on at the right time is crucial; it takes insight and creativity, not just luck. He also had the determination to follow through on his idea.
I don’t know how you got that impression. The author is clearly humble. But bragging? I don’t agree at all.
Gee, it sounds like using the proper channels works way better than trying to push trashy ads in an NPM postinstall script.
Hopefully this story will help tone deaf people to make the right decision next time.
Hopefully this story will help tone deaf people to make the right decision next time.
Sigh, GitHub is still promoting the "open source gig economy"
https://www.aniszczyk.org/2019/03/25/troubles-with-the-open-...
It's been about 2 years of GitHub sponsors and they haven't shared any data on how well people are doing.
https://www.aniszczyk.org/2019/03/25/troubles-with-the-open-...
It's been about 2 years of GitHub sponsors and they haven't shared any data on how well people are doing.
That was an insightful link. But is it really the gig economy ? This seems more like the crowdfunding model, which is more applicable to arts and crafts. I remember first reading about radiohead or someone else using pre-order sales to get money and then release the album.
There really needs to be an open data for business otherwise GDPR is pointless. Code is somehow not where the money is.
What is peculiar about software is maintenance cost which puts it somewhere between crowdfunding and subscriptions.
The gig economy makes sense if the person doing the gig is able to set the price otherwise it's not really fair.
There really needs to be an open data for business otherwise GDPR is pointless. Code is somehow not where the money is.
What is peculiar about software is maintenance cost which puts it somewhere between crowdfunding and subscriptions.
The gig economy makes sense if the person doing the gig is able to set the price otherwise it's not really fair.
We have a law called "Money Collection act", which states that to gather donations (i.e. payments with nothing in return), you have to get a permit. This permit costs money, is not given to individuals, and is given only for non-profit activities.
So this means that if you see a donation/sponsorship button on a software project where the money goes to a Finnish person, it is illegal (unless they have obtained a permit, which is highly unlikely). If you see a patreon/sponsorship with rewards, it's a grey area. The only clearly legal way is by selling actual things, and of course then you quickly need to set up a business.
I host a free project myself and I've had to set up a business (sole proprietorship) and sell things in order to get money for server costs. Even though people have been interested in donating, I can't do that legally.