Open Source Monetization
The cluster debates the ethics of accepting donations, rewards, or compensation for open source contributions, including refusals by creators, platform distributions like Brave, and concerns over monetizing others' work without ownership.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Huh? this is a random software engineer giving away his own money to try and make some impact.
paraphrasing: 'Getting compensated for your efforts is politically contentious, so we won't help you. But hey, we're open sourcey and stuff, so you can do it yourself. toodleydoo :) 'Look I don't really want this to fail. Would be great if streaming a video would no longer mean sending free money across the ocean. But they will have to change their attitude just a tiny bit.
You'd deal with the same problem if you received $100 through a donation button. People would start saying things like "I didn't pay $5 for you to take a leave of absence for a month!" or "I paid $5 and you aren't going to implement my request?"Accepting money at all is not a trivial decision.
I had similar misgivings/feelings while using the product. However: Two observations: 1.) they did include user-selected charities lately in their distribution of "upvote" profits; 2.) The point is less about making money, more about adverse selection (keeping out trolls). Nobody could subsist off of this in any real kind of way. If they did--the value they would have to provide would be immense.
Called ithttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13759157Should have charged people for it though. They need the money.
It wasn't fair to claim that some of the $8 million should go to Godot. What I should have said was don't make claims on your site and to people supporting and using Godot or any other open source community that aren't true.This person just wants some compensation for covering the forums for Godot which sounds reasonable to me. The way it was worded wasn't clear but the underlying intention was clear.
if that was ironic, I would tell that some people need money but don't need to share implementations.
Wouldn't that money be better spent going to a charity or a startup?
Don't you find it odd - to say the least - that you would offer to financially reward someone who did not author the project?
So you're trying to monetize other's contributions without giving them the right in return.