Github sponsors-only repos

3 Likes

This was a startup at one point. I’m not sure they’re still around, but they just got first-partied.

1 Like

Interesting line here. GitHub’s own business model boiled down to implementing permissions in a lot of cases. Private orgs. Private repos. GitHub Enterprise in your own private walled garden. Sponsors is trying to make them the payment infra for developers, too. So it makes a lot of strategic sense to link payments and perms.

Sponsorware: access to projects for just your sponsors.

Not sure I’ve heard “sponsorware” before. That name could make sense for software that’s open to view, but only licensed if you sponsor, as well. I did a license along those lines a while back. A few folks were using it, last I checked.

Discussions: a place to communicate with sponsors through Discussions or Issues.

I don’t see a lot of folks arguing against the idea that open development makes software better. So the idea of sponsor-only repos feels a bit quizzical. Sponsors would probably prefer to think that what they’re getting is better. We’ve seen motion from the database companies to make more of their paid open core source code available.

But “repo” is also the natural unit of service on GitHub. Issues, PRs, and now Discussions revolve around them.

An access-restricted repo is another way of implementing a sponsor-only support channel. Or rather, a sponsors-plural-only support channel, since presumably all sponsors are invited.

Early access: give sponsors the first look at what you’re building before it’s open sourced.

Delayed release. Always strong.

2 Likes