Jumpstarting new careers in open source(accelerator.github.com)
accelerator.github.com
Jumpstarting new careers in open source
https://accelerator.github.com/
80 comments
Open source will be perfectly fine if developers are not able to actually make a living spending most of their time on it, this is how this has always worked and nothing needs to change.
People and organizations who want to make a particular improvement to some piece of open source software will. If there are no dollars comming into the front end of the pipe, then those who don't want or need that change, won't make it - and that is perfectly okay. Open source can be quite successful even living off of people writing that code as part of their job or as a hobby. There is no need for it to be a separate career path - if an open source tool can't do X well, then whenever somebody needs or wants or gets paid to do X, that can be committed to that tool by the people whose career involves applying that tool. Sure, extra money helps, but open source communities work reasonably well also without it.
People and organizations who want to make a particular improvement to some piece of open source software will. If there are no dollars comming into the front end of the pipe, then those who don't want or need that change, won't make it - and that is perfectly okay. Open source can be quite successful even living off of people writing that code as part of their job or as a hobby. There is no need for it to be a separate career path - if an open source tool can't do X well, then whenever somebody needs or wants or gets paid to do X, that can be committed to that tool by the people whose career involves applying that tool. Sure, extra money helps, but open source communities work reasonably well also without it.
Altruism is alive and well in all aspects of society and software development is no exception. Good developers are often willing to spend some time and effort to build something and give it away for nothing. A great deal of our software infrastructure is built on such contributions.
But as a developer myself, I know that altruism only goes so far. There are many 'fun' tasks associated with making good software, but there are also many aspects that are quite unpleasant for the average developer. There is quite a bit of open source software out there with bugs, bad documentation, and bad design; simply because fixing those problems is a real hassle.
Some people are willing to dig in and do some of the dirty work for no pay, but the majority will take a pass. Nothing gets you out of bed on a cold day to go work in the trenches like a steady paycheck. If we are satisfied with the status-quo, then you are right and 'nothing needs to change'; but if you want stable software with good documentation and quick bug fixes, then some improvements need to happen.
But as a developer myself, I know that altruism only goes so far. There are many 'fun' tasks associated with making good software, but there are also many aspects that are quite unpleasant for the average developer. There is quite a bit of open source software out there with bugs, bad documentation, and bad design; simply because fixing those problems is a real hassle.
Some people are willing to dig in and do some of the dirty work for no pay, but the majority will take a pass. Nothing gets you out of bed on a cold day to go work in the trenches like a steady paycheck. If we are satisfied with the status-quo, then you are right and 'nothing needs to change'; but if you want stable software with good documentation and quick bug fixes, then some improvements need to happen.
> but if you want stable software with good documentation and quick bug fixes, then some improvements need to happen.
If you want stable software with good documentation you can make do it yourself. If you don't want to do the work then you don't really want it that badly. Open source is about freedom. If a billion dollar company finds out they have a show stopping bug because of an Open Source library they are dependent on they can fix it.
Nothing does need to change, what "status quo" are you talking about, if you don't like a piece of open source software don't use it, if you have to use it for your job then thank the stormfather that it is open source so you can go in and fix it.
Honestly people seem to think that the software will become better if we just start paying for it and that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, in fact often the crappiest software I've ever had to work with is proprietary. I always try and push my company to use open source not because I think it is always better but because if I run into a problem I can inspect the source and find out what is going on and why, and if I need to I can submit a patch.
Open source != free as in beer Open source = free as in speech.
The way things work now is fine, Linux works fine, Emacs works fine, if you're complaint is that some third party node library that you pulled off of Github to calculate the length of a string isn't working how you want my suggestion is submit a pull request or fork it.
This idea that open source software should meet some sort of standard of quality is entitled and noxious, the only guarantee and promise you ever got with open source was that you had the source code, if you want more than that, then do it yourself.
If you want stable software with good documentation you can make do it yourself. If you don't want to do the work then you don't really want it that badly. Open source is about freedom. If a billion dollar company finds out they have a show stopping bug because of an Open Source library they are dependent on they can fix it.
Nothing does need to change, what "status quo" are you talking about, if you don't like a piece of open source software don't use it, if you have to use it for your job then thank the stormfather that it is open source so you can go in and fix it.
Honestly people seem to think that the software will become better if we just start paying for it and that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, in fact often the crappiest software I've ever had to work with is proprietary. I always try and push my company to use open source not because I think it is always better but because if I run into a problem I can inspect the source and find out what is going on and why, and if I need to I can submit a patch.
Open source != free as in beer Open source = free as in speech.
The way things work now is fine, Linux works fine, Emacs works fine, if you're complaint is that some third party node library that you pulled off of Github to calculate the length of a string isn't working how you want my suggestion is submit a pull request or fork it.
This idea that open source software should meet some sort of standard of quality is entitled and noxious, the only guarantee and promise you ever got with open source was that you had the source code, if you want more than that, then do it yourself.
I could also grow all my own food, do all my car repairs myself, and build my own house; but I would rather pay people who specialize in those things to do them for me.
I don't want to have to learn all the code for every single open source project I use and have to try and figure out how to build new features I want; fix a nagging bug I found without breaking something else; or rewrite the documentation. I would rather pay a few bucks (along with the other users of the software) so that collectively the developers most familiar with the code can do that and be compensated for doing so. Without that incentive, the maintainer may get around to fixing your issue sometime next year, if ever.
Sure the source is open so if I REALLY, REALLY wanted to I could go dig into the unfamiliar code and try to figure out how to make it do what I want; but that just seems a little inefficient to me...but maybe that is just me.
I don't want to have to learn all the code for every single open source project I use and have to try and figure out how to build new features I want; fix a nagging bug I found without breaking something else; or rewrite the documentation. I would rather pay a few bucks (along with the other users of the software) so that collectively the developers most familiar with the code can do that and be compensated for doing so. Without that incentive, the maintainer may get around to fixing your issue sometime next year, if ever.
Sure the source is open so if I REALLY, REALLY wanted to I could go dig into the unfamiliar code and try to figure out how to make it do what I want; but that just seems a little inefficient to me...but maybe that is just me.
I'm with you, re: do it yourself if you want it that badly.
But there's if there's an opportunity to motivate an increase in the amount of money that goes to people that are doing what's best for the OSS projects e.g. guarding against supply chain attacks via open source contributions, then I think we should take that opportunity.
But there's if there's an opportunity to motivate an increase in the amount of money that goes to people that are doing what's best for the OSS projects e.g. guarding against supply chain attacks via open source contributions, then I think we should take that opportunity.
And how do you propose we do this? Pay developers for "secure" contributions?
Find developers who are scrutinizing inbound commits for free on their off time and pay them to quit their jobs so they can sleep more and scrutinize better while rested. If we can find a way to make being a professional youtuber a thing, we can find a way to make being a professionally unemployed open source developer a thing.
> The way things work now is fine, Linux works fine
Linux is being developed by salaried developers from multi-million dollar companies, almost exclusively.
Linux is being developed by salaried developers from multi-million dollar companies, almost exclusively.
If open source software is a public good, then it should be funded like other public goods. Unfortunately, there are some laws in the US that prevent government organizations from creating software that competes with software created by private companies, so the legal situation is awkward.
Of course. Not surprised, just dissappointed. I'd like to learn about this; maybe you can point me in the right direction.
(I worked on election integrity during the aughts, advocated citizen-owned software. I now feel I missed an(other) explanation for the bias towards the commercial stuff.)
(I worked on election integrity during the aughts, advocated citizen-owned software. I now feel I missed an(other) explanation for the bias towards the commercial stuff.)
I might be out of date. When searching for links to the policy, I found some notes about changes to the policy in 2015:
https://congressionaldata.org/open-source-software-now-permi...
The instance I'm mildly familiar with is Apache Accumulo. It was created in 2008 by a team at the NSA, and open-sourced in 2011. They discovered that the NSA was required to purchase the tool from a commercial company, so the team left the NSA and started Sqrrl Data, Inc., to sell the NSA's product back to itself. That was my understanding, at least. I am not a lawyer.
https://congressionaldata.org/open-source-software-now-permi...
The instance I'm mildly familiar with is Apache Accumulo. It was created in 2008 by a team at the NSA, and open-sourced in 2011. They discovered that the NSA was required to purchase the tool from a commercial company, so the team left the NSA and started Sqrrl Data, Inc., to sell the NSA's product back to itself. That was my understanding, at least. I am not a lawyer.
Result! You're the best. Thank you.
> to sell the NSA's product back to itself
Typical.
My county developed its own election administration software, gave it all to Global Election Systems (the notorious entity later bought by Diebold), then turned around and paid for yearly license and support. (There were rumors that our Sec of State got kickbacks.) Then, insult to injury, GES/Diebold claimed trade secrets to prevent independent inspection.
I can kind of understand. Neither the NSA or my county want to be software publishers. Core competency and all. But some of these arrangements are pretty bad.
> to sell the NSA's product back to itself
Typical.
My county developed its own election administration software, gave it all to Global Election Systems (the notorious entity later bought by Diebold), then turned around and paid for yearly license and support. (There were rumors that our Sec of State got kickbacks.) Then, insult to injury, GES/Diebold claimed trade secrets to prevent independent inspection.
I can kind of understand. Neither the NSA or my county want to be software publishers. Core competency and all. But some of these arrangements are pretty bad.
>There is quite a bit of open source software out there with bugs, bad documentation, and bad design; simply because fixing those problems is a real hassle.
Onboarding is a barrier to entry too. For example, yesterday I read a blog article saying that the Rust project Cargo doesn't have enough volunteers. Learning Rust at the moment and looking for a new project, I checked out the "how to contribute" section and looked at the issues on their github repo, but honestly it's daunting. I've submitted a few fixes to some project documentation in the past because those are some of the easiest tasks, but I'm yet to found a small enough crack in a big open source project to jump in and submit a pull request.
Onboarding is a barrier to entry too. For example, yesterday I read a blog article saying that the Rust project Cargo doesn't have enough volunteers. Learning Rust at the moment and looking for a new project, I checked out the "how to contribute" section and looked at the issues on their github repo, but honestly it's daunting. I've submitted a few fixes to some project documentation in the past because those are some of the easiest tasks, but I'm yet to found a small enough crack in a big open source project to jump in and submit a pull request.
IMO QEMU is a nice spot between important, straightforward to contribute and relatively understaffed compared to how widely it is used. I have found multiple behavior/stability issues that I’ve fixed on my own (exposed though OSdev-adjacent work) and submitted to the mailing list
> if an open source tool can't do X well, then whenever somebody needs or wants or gets paid to do X, that can be committed to that tool by the people whose career involves applying that tool.
More recently it seems like the plan is to fork the project, apply your change, and offer it an AWS branded alternative
More recently it seems like the plan is to fork the project, apply your change, and offer it an AWS branded alternative
Yup. If someone's profitting from my work, I want my cut.
That's why I keep asking about royalty schemes. Common for all other forms of IP. Curiously absent from FOSS.
That's why I keep asking about royalty schemes. Common for all other forms of IP. Curiously absent from FOSS.
Well, nothing "curiously" about it, it's because "FOSS" is a label we explicitly made to refer to the forms of IP where this is absent, where it's free as speech and they don't need to ask your permission to run the code for any purpose. You definitely can have a royalty scheme that ensures you get a cut if someone's profiting from your work, that's a reasonable desire, but then we wouldn't say that your work is FOSS.
What about dual licensing? That's already pretty common.
I'd like someone smart about these things to create the boilerplate royalties license complimenting, or compatible with, or whatever, some FOSS licenses. Say Apache License v2.0.
IIRC, it was ElasticSearch that recently tried to thread this needle.
Maybe I'm overthinking this. I tried to read up about royalties, find some model language, etc. Alas, IANAL, so got lost pretty quickly.
I'd like someone smart about these things to create the boilerplate royalties license complimenting, or compatible with, or whatever, some FOSS licenses. Say Apache License v2.0.
IIRC, it was ElasticSearch that recently tried to thread this needle.
Maybe I'm overthinking this. I tried to read up about royalties, find some model language, etc. Alas, IANAL, so got lost pretty quickly.
> People who don't bat an eye at paying $10 for lunch will balk at paying $10 for a software license for some tool or app that saves them a ton of time and effort. Until this changes, open source contributors will continue to struggle to capture some of the few dollars floating around. Too many will just decide that it just isn't worth it.
That's never going to change (how would it?). People have been saying similar things in every industry since the dawn of the dollar. It's just human nature, and anybody waiting for that change are going to die waiting.
That's never going to change (how would it?). People have been saying similar things in every industry since the dawn of the dollar. It's just human nature, and anybody waiting for that change are going to die waiting.
The psychology of “want” vs “need”. People need to eat and so the cost of it is justified and people will pay. The wants are weighed against the needs and are rarely justified unless the individual’s needs are met.
Some context, I am an open source advocate and someone that has contributed to open source software projects off and on for about 20 years.
I disagree entirely with your proposition. The economics of open source are built directly into the license agreement structure of the model. When you give a user of your software free and complete permission to do whatever they wish with that software as long as they appropriately credit you (or similar terms), that is /exactly/ what you are doing.
The economics of open source are exactly what they should be, pretty piss poor. Because you don't offer something for free if you have the expectation of being paid for it. This should be basic common sense. The challenge is that the software community has created a weird social order around this that open source is somehow ethically superior to commercial software, and so many developers feel socially obligated to open source software even when they have the expectation of being paid. This is a social challenge though, not an economic one. If your software produces a significant enough ROI above it's cost, you can sell it and be economically fruitful, otherwise you can't, this is is the basic nature of any business.
Where I do agree to some extent with you is that this has a negative impact on open source contributions, because the BATNA (Best Alternative to the Negotiated Agreement) for a software developer between contributing their time and energy to open source vs working for a big tech company for $$$$ is to ditch open source if it isn't economically viable for them. That said, I think this is an extraordinarily privileged position to be in, that a lot of developers lack perspective on. The average person, even in Western economies, makes nowhere near what the average software developer makes in income, and the expectation that you can clear $100k/yr+ by giving away software for free is a bit daft and entitled in a world where the average person in "wealthy countries" makes less than half of that.
Open source partly results in innovative, creative, and valuable ideas being implemented exactly because the relationship provides no real expectations of value on either side and allows developers the freedom to experiment and throw something out there. The reward for you releasing your software to the world for free is that someone found it useful which validated your idea and your creative expression as being valuable. It is not, and should not be, a job, other than as an employee of a company maintaining said project because they rely on it in their core infrastructure and necessarily and rightly take the cost upon themselves to maintain those things which they rely on without any expectation on the original author to do so for their hobby project.
I disagree entirely with your proposition. The economics of open source are built directly into the license agreement structure of the model. When you give a user of your software free and complete permission to do whatever they wish with that software as long as they appropriately credit you (or similar terms), that is /exactly/ what you are doing.
The economics of open source are exactly what they should be, pretty piss poor. Because you don't offer something for free if you have the expectation of being paid for it. This should be basic common sense. The challenge is that the software community has created a weird social order around this that open source is somehow ethically superior to commercial software, and so many developers feel socially obligated to open source software even when they have the expectation of being paid. This is a social challenge though, not an economic one. If your software produces a significant enough ROI above it's cost, you can sell it and be economically fruitful, otherwise you can't, this is is the basic nature of any business.
Where I do agree to some extent with you is that this has a negative impact on open source contributions, because the BATNA (Best Alternative to the Negotiated Agreement) for a software developer between contributing their time and energy to open source vs working for a big tech company for $$$$ is to ditch open source if it isn't economically viable for them. That said, I think this is an extraordinarily privileged position to be in, that a lot of developers lack perspective on. The average person, even in Western economies, makes nowhere near what the average software developer makes in income, and the expectation that you can clear $100k/yr+ by giving away software for free is a bit daft and entitled in a world where the average person in "wealthy countries" makes less than half of that.
Open source partly results in innovative, creative, and valuable ideas being implemented exactly because the relationship provides no real expectations of value on either side and allows developers the freedom to experiment and throw something out there. The reward for you releasing your software to the world for free is that someone found it useful which validated your idea and your creative expression as being valuable. It is not, and should not be, a job, other than as an employee of a company maintaining said project because they rely on it in their core infrastructure and necessarily and rightly take the cost upon themselves to maintain those things which they rely on without any expectation on the original author to do so for their hobby project.
I get the feeling that software community created bunch of "wanapreneurs" whose ultimate goal was to struck some gold mine easy way by making OSS.
This massive OSS devs burnout seems like reality hitting hard those who thought "I am going to write this piece of software and someone will shower me with money". Reality being companies simply not paying, getting others to contribute to your idea is much more work than expected, amount of entitled users increasing as popularity of software piece grows.
I believe these "wanapreneurs" are ones that mostly shout out that economics of open source should change.
In the end I totally agree that "the economics of open source are exactly what they should be, pretty piss poor.". Just that I have a bit less charitable view of the "social order around open source".
This massive OSS devs burnout seems like reality hitting hard those who thought "I am going to write this piece of software and someone will shower me with money". Reality being companies simply not paying, getting others to contribute to your idea is much more work than expected, amount of entitled users increasing as popularity of software piece grows.
I believe these "wanapreneurs" are ones that mostly shout out that economics of open source should change.
In the end I totally agree that "the economics of open source are exactly what they should be, pretty piss poor.". Just that I have a bit less charitable view of the "social order around open source".
> Because you don't offer something for free if you have the expectation of being paid for it.
Actually, lots of companies offer services for free with the expectation that, at some point in the future, they will paid for it.
Likewise, many open-source projects offer the core software for free and make money by selling themes/plugins, offering paid support, building other services on top of the open-source software, etc.
Whether you can pull it off depends a lot, of course, on what kind of software it is and who the target users are. Maybe this is feasible only for a small subset of open-source projects. But it's doable. It's been done. Heck, I'm doing it myself. So please don't dismiss this kind of business model too quickly.
Actually, lots of companies offer services for free with the expectation that, at some point in the future, they will paid for it.
Likewise, many open-source projects offer the core software for free and make money by selling themes/plugins, offering paid support, building other services on top of the open-source software, etc.
Whether you can pull it off depends a lot, of course, on what kind of software it is and who the target users are. Maybe this is feasible only for a small subset of open-source projects. But it's doable. It's been done. Heck, I'm doing it myself. So please don't dismiss this kind of business model too quickly.
This makes sense until you consider how much time many open source devs spend maintaining popular products, and the kind of ungrateful people they often have to deal with.
The beauty of not being paid for your time and releasing something as an unwarranted open source project, is that you can choose of your own volition without obligation how much time to dedicate to it and how you wish to respond to ungrateful people.
You cannot, however, change human nature. There are many people that wish you could change human nature, and that money was sufficiently powerful to do so, but it is not. In fact, when people pay for something, they become even more entitled while still remaining ungrateful. I would like to dissuade you from the notion that customer service is somehow easier and more reasonable than dealing with non-paying randos on the Internet.
You cannot, however, change human nature. There are many people that wish you could change human nature, and that money was sufficiently powerful to do so, but it is not. In fact, when people pay for something, they become even more entitled while still remaining ungrateful. I would like to dissuade you from the notion that customer service is somehow easier and more reasonable than dealing with non-paying randos on the Internet.
They don't have to spend that time nor do they have to entertain rude people/requests. The beauty of open source is that it is an expectationless expedition
Licenses imply Software-As-A-Service and that's a ridiculous model. If I buy a tool at a hardware store, I don't need to 'renew the license' on a monthly or yearly basis in order to keep using that tool. It's also designed to reduce the useful lifetime of hardware, as old software versions that work with old hardware lose support fairly quickly.
That's why I quit Microsoft Office after they moved to a subscription model, for example. Open-source tools may have fewer bells and whistles, but they can be run on essentially any hardware that Linux can run on, there's always a minimalist solution, they don't have all the telemetry overhead, etc.
As far as the economics, well, it's not a cash cow for investors, certainly, but individuals can make a living within the open source world by providing paid technical assistance.
That's why I quit Microsoft Office after they moved to a subscription model, for example. Open-source tools may have fewer bells and whistles, but they can be run on essentially any hardware that Linux can run on, there's always a minimalist solution, they don't have all the telemetry overhead, etc.
As far as the economics, well, it's not a cash cow for investors, certainly, but individuals can make a living within the open source world by providing paid technical assistance.
I don't love the proliferation of SAAS, but your analogy isn't very solid. You don't pay upkeep on your hammer because it doesn't change. If it gets damaged, you do pay for repairs (although you probably don't go to the manufacturer). And if the manufacturer came out every X months to replace the head with some new alloy, you'd have to pay for that, too.
The point is that it's difficult to get software that is static anymore. The reason it's considered a service isn't _because_ it has a subscription model, it's because a product owner and an engineering team are constantly making bug fixes, improvements, security updates, etc. The problem with the model isn't that it exists - the problem is that we don't have a choice. When security is not an issue (like with MS Word), I'd take the single purchase almost every time.
The point is that it's difficult to get software that is static anymore. The reason it's considered a service isn't _because_ it has a subscription model, it's because a product owner and an engineering team are constantly making bug fixes, improvements, security updates, etc. The problem with the model isn't that it exists - the problem is that we don't have a choice. When security is not an issue (like with MS Word), I'd take the single purchase almost every time.
> You don't pay upkeep on your hammer because it doesn't change
You do. Hammers rust, the handle may break. Practically all things have some kind of upkeep.
You do. Hammers rust, the handle may break. Practically all things have some kind of upkeep.
And so what; the hammer manufacturer comes around and gives you fresh handles and a nice rust treatment every other month? That’s precisely the difference between tools that you buy once and SaaS subscriptions, and why the analogy is flawed.
Yes, that's a good rewording of the next sentence I wrote.
The thing is, most software nowadays is expected to integrate well with the outside world. A simple calculator or a full-fledged photo editor can and probably should run in its own bubble isolated from the world, so a single full-value price makes sense; but a lot of progress and innovation (and creation of new needs, aka. new software) is happening at a level where systems need to talk with each other.
It does make sense to pay recurring money if the tool needs to be constantly updated to keep up with 3rd-party services. I agree that a text processor does not make sense, though; albeit they are probably justifying themselves due to the online features it provides (whatever they are; I haven't used MS Office in 10 years)
It does make sense to pay recurring money if the tool needs to be constantly updated to keep up with 3rd-party services. I agree that a text processor does not make sense, though; albeit they are probably justifying themselves due to the online features it provides (whatever they are; I haven't used MS Office in 10 years)
End users are one thing, but what about multi-billion dollars companies that leverage high-quality open-source components mostly for free?
Yes, what about them?
If the open source licenses contained exceptions saying "you can't use this for free if you make more than x amount of money," then it isn't really open source...
If the open source licenses contained exceptions saying "you can't use this for free if you make more than x amount of money," then it isn't really open source...
Open Source is usually $0 cost because I believe there is a problem with Stallman's guidelines. They fail to show how developer's can protect price:
> When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”
There are two problem I see here, 1) totally free redistribution means price cannot be protected, as resellers can make a too-easy profit giving out discounts, and 2) unrestricted access leads to theft, people will eventually steal once they learn there are no impediments.
I think Open Source needs to move to a Low Cost model similar to the modern media industry. A $10/month subscription to sites like Github. Limited access to projects for non-subscribers. Subscribers can download as much as they want. Fees are redistributed to projects based on subscriber downloads. License prohibits anyone but project owner from re-hosting on other sites. Developers are free to modify your source, and get compensated for it, but just because they touch a small part of it, they don't then get all your revenue, instead rather than project forks, they can do project patches or do their own rewrites. Copyright is protected but the definition for copyright of source code should be softened to be more aligned with standards for other media, so copyright for source should be simply defined as 'obviously equivalent to an average programmer'. So then any programmer is allowed to superficially rewrite code, just as authors superficially rewrite articles, it needs to have some originality to an average programmer.
This would both incentivize/support developers and keep away restrictions from improving code.
> When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”
There are two problem I see here, 1) totally free redistribution means price cannot be protected, as resellers can make a too-easy profit giving out discounts, and 2) unrestricted access leads to theft, people will eventually steal once they learn there are no impediments.
I think Open Source needs to move to a Low Cost model similar to the modern media industry. A $10/month subscription to sites like Github. Limited access to projects for non-subscribers. Subscribers can download as much as they want. Fees are redistributed to projects based on subscriber downloads. License prohibits anyone but project owner from re-hosting on other sites. Developers are free to modify your source, and get compensated for it, but just because they touch a small part of it, they don't then get all your revenue, instead rather than project forks, they can do project patches or do their own rewrites. Copyright is protected but the definition for copyright of source code should be softened to be more aligned with standards for other media, so copyright for source should be simply defined as 'obviously equivalent to an average programmer'. So then any programmer is allowed to superficially rewrite code, just as authors superficially rewrite articles, it needs to have some originality to an average programmer.
This would both incentivize/support developers and keep away restrictions from improving code.
> Open Source is usually $0 cost because I believe there is a problem with Stallman's guidelines
"Open Source" is not RMS's thing, he is the "Free" software guy. By getting that wrong you kinda disqualify yourself from being taken seriously by those of us who consider ourselves "Free" software fanatics and who see the whole "Open Source" movement as a distraction from the main point.
Not that that matters, because effectively no one cares. Most people, like you, seem to not even realize there's any difference.
Speaking as a self-described "Free" software fanatic, I feel like we failed nearly completely. At least socially and politically (technically GNU software runs half the planet, eh? You're using some right now, no doubt.)
- - - -
Still speaking as a "Free" software fanatic, it seems like there's no point in Open Source except to benefit people who don't want to share their improvements, and so this effort, coming from Microsoft, seems like a tricky way to get devs to work for them for free (paradoxically by dangling the idea of a paid career in front of them, eh?)
"Open Source" is not RMS's thing, he is the "Free" software guy. By getting that wrong you kinda disqualify yourself from being taken seriously by those of us who consider ourselves "Free" software fanatics and who see the whole "Open Source" movement as a distraction from the main point.
Not that that matters, because effectively no one cares. Most people, like you, seem to not even realize there's any difference.
Speaking as a self-described "Free" software fanatic, I feel like we failed nearly completely. At least socially and politically (technically GNU software runs half the planet, eh? You're using some right now, no doubt.)
- - - -
Still speaking as a "Free" software fanatic, it seems like there's no point in Open Source except to benefit people who don't want to share their improvements, and so this effort, coming from Microsoft, seems like a tricky way to get devs to work for them for free (paradoxically by dangling the idea of a paid career in front of them, eh?)
But they showed a big slide that said: Microsoft <3 Open Source
Clearly that makes them trustworthy.
Clearly that makes them trustworthy.
> I think Open Source needs to move to a Low Cost model [...]
> License prohibits anyone but project owner from re-hosting on other sites.
That sure don't sound like Open Source.
> License prohibits anyone but project owner from re-hosting on other sites.
That sure don't sound like Open Source.
counterpoint: open source is fine. what needs to change is economics themselves
Open source and arts are two reasons why Universal Basic Income experiments are interesting...
My first thought on seeing that is that who needs a career in open source? Open source is all about freedom, and not free as in beer free as in speech. It's that simple, the idea behind open source is that you are also provided the source code of whatever you are purchasing so you actually own it, it has nothing to do with price.
Open source was never about getting things free it was always about making sure that the bullhockey that is currently happening, where the OEMs and software vendors own your device and allow you to use it, never happens, because you have the source you know what it is doing and you can change it.
Some billion dollar company likes your library and uses it, that's fine, because you gave them the freedom to. You can also give instead demand they pay you $10,000 for it if they want to use it, and that is totally okay to. Because Open Source is not about money it's about FREEDOM!
Open source was never about getting things free it was always about making sure that the bullhockey that is currently happening, where the OEMs and software vendors own your device and allow you to use it, never happens, because you have the source you know what it is doing and you can change it.
Some billion dollar company likes your library and uses it, that's fine, because you gave them the freedom to. You can also give instead demand they pay you $10,000 for it if they want to use it, and that is totally okay to. Because Open Source is not about money it's about FREEDOM!
I'm almost 100% certain this will go to maintainers that already have good visibility and possibly good funding. This isn't a bad thing inherently, as they are deserving. Rather, I wish an explicit goal of the program was to specifically highlighted active projects that clearly don't have any resources but are still very popular in their communities.
What would be even more cool is if GitHub had a residency program for top OSS contributors / maintainers where they could work - with benefits pay etc - on their projects under GitHubs employ. Kind of like how some Journalist outfits (e.g. Mother Jones) have their fellowship programs.
Big tech companies do have the resources to do this, and its not like there isn't precedent for it in the industry. This would just take it to a whole new level.
I also imagine the marketing positivity would be pretty strong for them.
What would be even more cool is if GitHub had a residency program for top OSS contributors / maintainers where they could work - with benefits pay etc - on their projects under GitHubs employ. Kind of like how some Journalist outfits (e.g. Mother Jones) have their fellowship programs.
Big tech companies do have the resources to do this, and its not like there isn't precedent for it in the industry. This would just take it to a whole new level.
I also imagine the marketing positivity would be pretty strong for them.
> I'm almost 100% certain this will go to maintainers that already have good visibility and possibly good funding
In my opinion, most of this will turn into a way to game the system. Like another comment said, this is Microsoft's "Summer Of Code".
For a successful open source funding story, take a look at Mkdocs-Material, which recently crossed $10k/mo:
https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/
In my opinion, most of this will turn into a way to game the system. Like another comment said, this is Microsoft's "Summer Of Code".
For a successful open source funding story, take a look at Mkdocs-Material, which recently crossed $10k/mo:
https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/
This is interesting. I have noticed something, about certain communities, and where (often but not exclusively) these success stories come from. It seems to be that the general following:
- The frontend ecosystem is one of the worst ecosystems for OSS funding, despite its enormous size
- Python, C#, C/C++ communities seem very much okay paying for licenses to packages and seem to have a better uptick in funding OSS. I've seen alot of Python success stories in particular
- If you aren't in a mainstream language either your community funds you very closely or its not funded at all, there seems to be little middle ground. Wish I could think of two direct comparative examples but I think looking at ocaml vs haskell is telling (idk if their userbase is similar in size or not, I am almost certain ocaml is bigger but not sure by how much)
Regardless, its still only the top 1-2% of projects, regardless of ecosystem, that get most of the funding. The sad reality is often its OSS maintainers paying other OSS maintainers most of the time.
- The frontend ecosystem is one of the worst ecosystems for OSS funding, despite its enormous size
- Python, C#, C/C++ communities seem very much okay paying for licenses to packages and seem to have a better uptick in funding OSS. I've seen alot of Python success stories in particular
- If you aren't in a mainstream language either your community funds you very closely or its not funded at all, there seems to be little middle ground. Wish I could think of two direct comparative examples but I think looking at ocaml vs haskell is telling (idk if their userbase is similar in size or not, I am almost certain ocaml is bigger but not sure by how much)
Regardless, its still only the top 1-2% of projects, regardless of ecosystem, that get most of the funding. The sad reality is often its OSS maintainers paying other OSS maintainers most of the time.
Gating base features behind a paywall is not really very Open Source.
https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/#whats-... includes subtitles and icons as paywall features.
Open Core is a plague on Open Source.
https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/#whats-... includes subtitles and icons as paywall features.
Open Core is a plague on Open Source.
IMO it's not a big deal, and one can edit the jinja2 template to hack in support. Plus, it'll be available to everyone at some point (hopefully).
I'm not sure I understand how this project is supposed to help OSS devs?
20k over 10 weeks is fine and all, but then what? I've been writing open source software and maintaining projects for decades, and have in total received less than $500 from thoughtful donors.
Don't get me wrong; I'd LOVE to be able to do open source work full time, as my list of projects to benefit humanity extend far beyond what I could do in a lifetime where I must support myself with fulltime work. But the problem is how to maintain a steady income stream so that I can focus my attention on the projects...
20k over 10 weeks is fine and all, but then what? I've been writing open source software and maintaining projects for decades, and have in total received less than $500 from thoughtful donors.
Don't get me wrong; I'd LOVE to be able to do open source work full time, as my list of projects to benefit humanity extend far beyond what I could do in a lifetime where I must support myself with fulltime work. But the problem is how to maintain a steady income stream so that I can focus my attention on the projects...
In addition it says people that receive it will have to participate in GitHub events for it (they say a 10 hour per week commitment) and provide material/info for GitHub to share about the program. So they're going to waste your time (which is already scarce, overworked and limited) so you can do marketing for them.
Just cut checks, don't make people act out reality show or circus tricks. Ask maintainers what they need and give it to them--that's how you help, not by adding to their workload.
Just cut checks, don't make people act out reality show or circus tricks. Ask maintainers what they need and give it to them--that's how you help, not by adding to their workload.
> Just cut checks, don't make people act out reality show or circus tricks. Ask maintainers what they need and give it to them--that's how you help, not by adding to their workload.
You confuse this for a project trying to benefit developers or Open Source. It's a PR project.
You confuse this for a project trying to benefit developers or Open Source. It's a PR project.
$20K for 10 weeks is decent change for folks in the Global South.
I got a much smaller-sized grant for a FOSS project from Mozilla in July 2020 (a bit more than $4K), and that helped pay the bills for over a year.
I got a much smaller-sized grant for a FOSS project from Mozilla in July 2020 (a bit more than $4K), and that helped pay the bills for over a year.
Even in the US. Minimum wage is $7.25
That's 2759 hours, (a 9-5 for over a year). The opportunity cost is obviously massive, but it's a sacrifice a lot of people will happily take.
That's 2759 hours, (a 9-5 for over a year). The opportunity cost is obviously massive, but it's a sacrifice a lot of people will happily take.
Its life-changing money here. Unfortunately a lot of places where thats the case are not supported by Github Sponsors.
That's not a lot of runway for you to build critical mass and have your project become self-sustaining. I feel the GitHub people who worked on this project saw this as a more meaningful way to give money to OSS people than the usual grants, but in practice I don't think this will have a different effect at all.
This is kinda sad because GitHub really hit the nail on the head with Sponsors. They are in a unique position to really make a difference, but this ain't it IMO.
This is kinda sad because GitHub really hit the nail on the head with Sponsors. They are in a unique position to really make a difference, but this ain't it IMO.
I’ll be excited when they make a program for people with kids or other time limiting situations. With every program I see like this, it’s designed for single, childless individuals who have all the free time in the world.
Github, proudly paving the way for the "open source" to open source.
If there was funding, people wouldn't attend a marketing seminar. This is just a microsoft acquisition with extra steps. Big Tech has been looking to exploit free software for a while now. Microshit's VSCode was a starting point. They'll gatekeep competent devs into mundane tasks for $$$$, and they'll pay "open source" devs pittances to lock them into something they intend on controlling the direction of.
The way out is pretty clear: stop using Github.
If there was funding, people wouldn't attend a marketing seminar. This is just a microsoft acquisition with extra steps. Big Tech has been looking to exploit free software for a while now. Microshit's VSCode was a starting point. They'll gatekeep competent devs into mundane tasks for $$$$, and they'll pay "open source" devs pittances to lock them into something they intend on controlling the direction of.
The way out is pretty clear: stop using Github.
Does anyone know if this is focused on projects which are open source developer tools or similar sorts of projects?
Or is it "open source" in general, such as a non-profit or business web application, which is open sourced (for example, so it can be used by anyone in any country).
I ask because I am interested in creating an agriculture-oriented localized social network, based on shared physical resources (tools, agricultural inputs).
That's just one example of what I mean by a non-profit web application. Not sure if it's the sort of project which this program is looking for-- thought I'd ask here to see if anyone knows.
Or is it "open source" in general, such as a non-profit or business web application, which is open sourced (for example, so it can be used by anyone in any country).
I ask because I am interested in creating an agriculture-oriented localized social network, based on shared physical resources (tools, agricultural inputs).
That's just one example of what I mean by a non-profit web application. Not sure if it's the sort of project which this program is looking for-- thought I'd ask here to see if anyone knows.
I'm curious who this is going to help--open source projects that would be profitable if only the maintainer had $20,000 of runway and some advice on finding revenue streams? is that really a niche that exists?
$20,000 can be a lot of money or very little money depending on cost of living.
I wonder if it could help connect open source projects with potential sponsors, including teaching some basic business/sales skills that the average dev probably lacks.
USD$20,000 would last me a really long time in the Peruvian Amazon. It's almost 75 times the minimum salary. That's 6 years. During that time maybe it will be possible to get some other funding.
With that kind of money, you could hire a developer for one month, or pay for half of a new car! Truly a princely sum.
tl;dr, you can get $2k/week for up to 10 weeks to work on open source.
There's an application process and you'll get selected by a committee. You have to have a GH profile and you can't work for GitHub or any of their affiliated companies. They are biased toward selecting applicants who:
There's an application process and you'll get selected by a committee. You have to have a GH profile and you can't work for GitHub or any of their affiliated companies. They are biased toward selecting applicants who:
Have an active and growing set of users
Understand how you want to grow and maintain your project
Wish to pursue open source work full-timeIt's not just "work on open source." It's "work on your open source project, for which you're already a maintainer."
You don't just get paid to work on whatever project(s) you want for 10 weeks.
You don't just get paid to work on whatever project(s) you want for 10 weeks.
I don't think it's up to 10 weeks, but $20k if you participate in the entire program. 0 if you don't.
Drop to 25% pay and have to jump through the Microsoft-GitHub selection committee?
Can't say I'm excited for the 'offer' despite having lots of FOSS repos... or is it a side-hustle type arrangement?
Can't say I'm excited for the 'offer' despite having lots of FOSS repos... or is it a side-hustle type arrangement?
[deleted]
Reading the rules
> Who can apply?
> Not be a current employee of GitHub and/or any of its parent/subsidiary companies
So no Microsoft, npm, bethesda(ZeniMax), linkedin employees can apply.
But if you are activision, this might be your last ticket out ;)
> Who can apply?
> Not be a current employee of GitHub and/or any of its parent/subsidiary companies
So no Microsoft, npm, bethesda(ZeniMax), linkedin employees can apply.
But if you are activision, this might be your last ticket out ;)
I gave up my massive awesome sci-fi-smelling project about a year ago in preference for horticulture. But 2000/week is mighty tempting.
8 in the committee, 2 women :(
I really want to do it full time but i can't compete with all the persons out there that has more traction than me.
I really want to do it full time but i can't compete with all the persons out there that has more traction than me.
This is like google summer of code.
GSoC forbids maintainers from participating (but provides orgs $500/student for the 12 weeks).
I'd strongly consider participating in this. It's 40x more money than GSoC for a similar time commitment and ~50x more than the money I'd personally make as a full time maintainer (I've been an org admin & mentor for GSoC for the past couple years).
> To participate in the Program, a GSoC Contributor must: be a student or a beginner to open source software development.
https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/rules - 7) 7.1) a) iv)
I'd strongly consider participating in this. It's 40x more money than GSoC for a similar time commitment and ~50x more than the money I'd personally make as a full time maintainer (I've been an org admin & mentor for GSoC for the past couple years).
> To participate in the Program, a GSoC Contributor must: be a student or a beginner to open source software development.
https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/rules - 7) 7.1) a) iv)
Bingo. It's the latest MSFT poster-child that'll be gently strangled / frankensteined in a few years, when people start gaming it.
Really, I don't think it'll take a few years.
Really, I don't think it'll take a few years.
"Tell us about your project"?
NOPE!
NOPE!
What? If it's open source, what are you protecting by not telling somebody about it?
my sanity in being able to prosper someday
People who don't bat an eye at paying $10 for lunch will balk at paying $10 for a software license for some tool or app that saves them a ton of time and effort. Until this changes, open source contributors will continue to struggle to capture some of the few dollars floating around. Too many will just decide that it just isn't worth it.