When software depends on a project thanklessly maintained by a random guy in Nebraska, is open source sustainable?
Huntley is advising other companies to follow its example: generate a bill of materials for your commercial software to find out what components you use and then identify your unpaid vendors. Then mitigate your supply chain risks. The fund has a simple decision tree that he uses to determine whether his company can either fund the project, contribute in kind with code, or take a more active role as a maintainer.
I keep forgetting about Open Collective’s Back Your Stack https://backyourstack.com/
I think prosperity license is really good for sustaining of OSS project.
I wonder how easy is to manage prosperity license for big projects like Linux kernel and BSD OS development? As there are many developers and signing CLA might be difficult to do in that case.
Some folks here on the forum coaxed me into adding a project to publish standard terms for dev-to-dev deals for source-available commercial projects to my list: Indie Code Catalog Free License v1.2.3
Oof. My takeaways:
OpenSSL foundation still only has two corporate sponsors, for $5k a year each. Most of their money is paid support contracts. They won’t say how much that its.
Things are so bad that Linux Conf AU, held in Huntley’s native Australia, has taken to making a psychologist available for OSS devs on site.
“You can make money in open source, but not by accident.” — Drew DeVault
Nice one, Drew!
“We believe a community is most effective when it can survive its founders.” — Pia Mancini
Pia’s great. But this can be understood in some really cingey ways.
Reminds me of the PyCon Australia talk you linked to a while back.
Babel has one of the highest donation rates on Open Collective, and yet it’s still struggling while pursuing that funding model.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27116357 largely in reaction to: https://twitter.com/sebmck/status/1392019586833387522
I’m biased, because Sebastian was a dick to so many people in and around npm when I represented them. This is very much in my confirmation bias.
Even if all of Henry’s salary had been allocated to other contributors, the project would still be desperately underfunded.
If Babel had been dual commercial/noncommercial licensed from the beginning, they would have been able to pay for Sebastian and others to work full-time, and Rome would be years ahead of where it is now.
For the record, Henry’s salary is fine. Probably low. It’s Henry freaking Zhu we’re talking about.
Another problems I see when I mention prosperity license people attack with passion that this is not Open source license I mean if source is available on github doesn’t that make it open source license?
If open source licensing, or the open source “community”, is so awesome, why doesn’t it solve these problems? Why are so many people who know open source so well moving to strong copyleft and noncommercial terms?
There are people attacking COVID-19 vaccines with passion online right now.
Reminds me of this (circa 2014)
GitHub never reached out or anything - their solution - better tools to unsubscribe and mark as done.
Same issue is happening in the rust community now, of which I’ve provided some commentary on here: