[HN Gopher] Funds for Open Source ___________________________________________________________________ Funds for Open Source Author : BerislavLopac Score : 245 points Date : 2021-03-25 11:27 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.opencollective.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.opencollective.com) | caniszczyk wrote: | One problem with this approach is still that depending what | country you're from, you're essentially creating an "open source | gig economy" where developers work for scraps from company | donations without health/retirement benefits: | https://www.aniszczyk.org/2019/03/25/troubles-with-the-open-... | | What I'd like to see instead of see people encouraging developers | and open source maintainers start companies and create positive | sum dynamics in wealth created. | alannallama wrote: | Open Collective team member here. I totally agree that the gig | economy approach is unhealthy. A big goal of ours is to help | open source creators earn a decent living making open source | that can rival what they'd get paid working for a commercial | company. We've managed to facilitate that for quite a few | projects, but as an ecosystem we have a long way to go. We need | way more companies to step up to the plate and way more money | flowing in. We also support projects who build companies and | commercial offerings out of their open source projects, as long | as they remain genuinely open source, and have many Collectives | with parallel companies in addition. | prepend wrote: | What's the take for coordinating this Fund API? If I donate $1, | what percent gets to projects and what percent is overhead? | | I want more open source software and more great open source | software. But I think the best projects (Apache, Linux, etc) | aren't in need of funds and function more as common goods with | multiple companies paying for work and contributing back. | | So I think their heart is in the right place, but the | implementation won't lead to better software. | david_allison wrote: | Unsure whether they're using a different fee model for the | "Fund" payments. But they're open about the fees for payments | from individuals (each transaction on a collective's page shows | the fee breakdown). | | > Open Collective takes 10% + credit card fees (usually 3% + | $0.30/transaction) [0] | | A few concrete examples (dependent upon payment processor | chosen) | | For $1, a collective got ~$0.56 | | For $100, a collective got ~$86.60 | | I was getting very close to the inter-bank exchange rate for | payouts. | | [0] https://medium.com/open-collective/what-is-open- | collective-h.... | piamancini wrote: | Hi! Pia here from Open Collective - In the FUNDS case the | fees are taken when the Fund is created. Donations from the | Fund are free of fees afterwards. Since the Funds are | generally bank payments, there's no Stripe fees in this case. | lallysingh wrote: | So for bank payments, what kind of fees are we talking | about? | piamancini wrote: | It's 10% which gets shared 5% & 5% between the platform | and the non for profit that is the custodian of the funds | (and provides compliance, tax filing, 1099s,etc) | Zababa wrote: | > Open Collective takes 10% | | That's honestly a lot. | piamancini wrote: | Open Collective takes 5% and the other 5% goes to the non | profit that provides fiscal sponsorship for the projects. | prepend wrote: | That's still a lot, I think. Compared to other charities | using a site like charitynavigator.org you can see that | is a high price for a charity. | | It's also an odd legal structure to separate the platform | from a non-profit to do admin tasks, since non-profits | are not really that good at doing admin and compliance. | prepend wrote: | 10% is a lot of overhead for just being an index fund. | Imagine if vanguard took 10% overhead for their management. | | I'd rather go through things like GitHub sponsorships that | take 0%. Or I'd rather see a community oriented process that | is OSS and just tries to connect donors to projects so I can | donate directly to projects and just pay credit card | processing fees. | Qwertious wrote: | Who is this intended to get funds from? From corporations, or | from average consumers? | | IMO corporate funding is a death trap in the long run, because | then _they_ choose what gets priority and they have all the wrong | incentives - they 'll do right by the user when they can _afford_ | to. | | More corporate funding is useful as a stepping stone, but in | long-term planning it's a mirage. | alannallama wrote: | Open Collective team member here. This particular initiative is | aimed at funding from major sponsors. Our platform also has | crowdfunding functionality so projects can fundraise from | individuals, too. | | Almost all the corporate funding we facilitate is no strings | attached, meaning the project creators and maintainers stay in | the driver's seat when it comes to prioritisation. Some | projects opt to make other commitments to funders but that's | totally up to the project. | maxrev17 wrote: | Love the idea! | rapnie wrote: | > So, open source projects want to be supported, and companies | who rely on open source want to invest in them but there's a | massive pain point: | | > In the open source world, formal contracts and partnership | agreements don't happen the way they do in the business world. | | In a way what OpenCollective offers here is much needed. The OSS | world has a really hard time to get funded, while at the same | time big tech is thriving upon their works. | | Another pain point not mentioned in the article is that big tech | corporate world also doesn't like FOSS (copyleft) licenses. They | favor permissive licenses, as this is what their empires are | built upon. | | I fear this funding initiative will favor OSS to the detriment of | FOSS. I also feel that OpenCollective - which I found aligned | with FOSS principles at the start, hence really attractive - is | moving towards raking in the big money now. | alannallama wrote: | Open Collective team member here. All the money involved in | this initiative goes to Open Source Collective 501(c)(6). As a | non-profit, all revenues are reinvested back into the mission | of building health and sustainability in the open source | ecosystem. We're not really "raking in the big money" but if we | do, it will all go toward supporting open source. | | FWIW I agree with you about copyleft licenses, philosophically. | But we've taken the approach of being very pragmatic when it | comes to working with corporate sponsors, and we can't make | them accept certain licenses, etc. Our approach is to build up | funding for open source projects so they can be stronger and | healthier and have the power to advocate for what they want to | see in their ecosystem. | rapnie wrote: | I really appreciate your response. Thank you very much. | atomashpolskiy wrote: | So this is only for projects with paying or willing to pay | customers, right? | | Say, I have a small, permissively licensed personal project | (bittorrent implementation), that has some userbase, including | for-profit companies. | | There is a lot of shit code in there, and many features are | missing. Let us assume for the sake of the argument that given | sufficient time I would be able to turn it into a state-of-the- | art reference library. But given the current state of my | financials I'm finding it hard to justify putting any effort into | it for free at the moment and end up purchasing other | opportunities not related to OSS. | | I'm pretty sure it is not a unique situation and wonder if there | are any solutions for this (e.g. angels, incubators, something | like that?) | choeger wrote: | For such a small-scale project, I suggest you seek out the | corporate users of your project and offer consulting / | development contracts as a freelancer. This can be on a per- | ticket basis on their side. | | If it turns out that they have real use cases for your software | they should be glad for the offering. Make sure to either | request a high rate, as you are the leading developer and | leading expert for the software. This high rate basically pays | for further development (as a kind of training or investment | into your offering). | | If they don't have a use case, code quality might not be as | important and you can thus justify to scale down your | involvement until such use cases appear. | atomashpolskiy wrote: | Did consulting, yes. Two concerns: 1) Some guys want IP on | improvements to the original codebase 2) When I work on | client's problems, I have less time to work on the original | codebase, so the earned money is not exactly reinvested into | the project, which is the primary point of donations. | 7steps2much wrote: | Yes, the way I understood this is that customers can contribute | to projects more easily. If you don't have any customers / | users willing to pay then you don't get any money. | | As for your situation, put a notice up on your project that you | are willing to fix bugs / code new features for a fee? If these | companies use your library they might be interested in | sponsoring your work. | | If they are not however, then I don't think there is a way to | fund your development. | | As for incubators etc., they are probably not all that | interested in a BitTorrent implementation, considering how many | are already around? Unless of course the library provided some | value nobody else does. | atomashpolskiy wrote: | Yeah, right. So this is not what I had in mind -- a way for | the society to invest into projects that might not have an | obvious immediate business value. Like society invests in | raising and educating kids, for example, hoping that some of | these kids will bring positive value to the world when they | grow up. | shrubble wrote: | OpenCollective as a company signed the open letter against RMS | at: rms-open-letter.github.io . | | The FSF is in some ways a competitor to this for-profit company | ... is that a fair statement? | benjamuk wrote: | Hey Executive Director of Open Source Collective here. | | I signed the agreement on behalf of >2,500 open source projects | (and the communities who maintain them) because I agree the | call to action would strengthen the community, not weaken it. | | This is not about the FSF or the GNU Project, it's about | building a safe space for people to participate in and build a | commons that is as diverse and welcoming as it is free and | open. | luckylion wrote: | > I signed the agreement on behalf of >2,500 open source | projects | | Did you ask them for a vote, or is there a general | arrangement that you / OSC speaks for them? | erezsh wrote: | I'm generally a fan of the open collective, and I appreciate | your contributions to open source. But I'm disappointed to | learn that you took part in this irrational attack on the | FSF. I feel that it has in fact made the open source space | weaker and significantly less safe. I hope you will | reconsider your stance on this issue. | | (I'm not a fan of RMS btw, this isn't about him at all. It's | about principles and protocols) | undefined1 wrote: | not exactly welcoming to neurodivergent individuals and those | who don't perfectly conform to the approved orthodoxy. that | letter is gross, slanderous and cult-like ("dangerous force", | "These sorts of beliefs"). it's straight out of Scientology's | Suppressive Person playbook. it does not speak for the open | source community. it speaks for a small set of authoritarians | who wield weaponized empathy and threat of banishment as a | means to control people. | | please reconsider. | rimutaka wrote: | I would love to see their pitch deck with the TAM and that sweet | x10000 ROI with their 10% fee! :) | | Although they may add value to OSS in the short term by bringing | in the $$$ we wouldn't otherwise get, their ultimate purpose as a | business is to maximize the return to the shareholders, who are | not you or me. | | What we really need is more competition in this space to drive | the fees down. | caniszczyk wrote: | ...or use services that are run by non profits? there's a lot | of funding platforms out there https://www.oss.fund | | this type of service should be a public common good imho | AKluge wrote: | The ultimate purpose is to fulfill the will of the | shareholders. While this is usually dominated by profit | concerns, other factors can come into play as well. Especially | social good and community impact. | artembugara wrote: | There is one basic thing about open source and market economy: | | 1. People open source for free. They already do that. So, there | is no real need to pay them as they are willing to do so for | free. Greatest minds work for open-sourced projects. | | 2. If you want to pay/fund/support open source. Great, but these | numbers we're talking about (like $1k/mo) are nowhere near what | devs make at corporations. | | I think Funds for Open Source is a great initiative! I just do | not think it can be a real alternative to a career path. | | I think the best open source support is done by big companies who | open source their work. For example, Airflow by AirBnb. | xbar wrote: | I think it is likely an alternative career path for a handful | of FOSS unicorns whose work is so instrumental that private | corporations desperately need their work to continue. | | Among us, some "entrepreneurs" will produce 100 little projects | and try to get them all funded and then Show HN how they make a | living off of dozens of lightly funded projects. | | Funds for Open Source will globalize some work inasmuch as some | developers will get paid some money in places where no | development career paths exist now. Look at the World Economic | Forum's Global Competitiveness report and you can find at least | 20 countries where tech companies do not hire. | | To your point, the reason people open source for free is that | they cannot produce free software and get paid. There is no way | for them to be compensated for working in alignment with their | own values. Funds for Open Source attacks that problem. | | I don't know that Funds is a good organization, or that they | are fair in their pricing, or whether they are the best | equipped private, for-profit company to wedge themselves | between free-thinking developers and the corporate entities | that consume their work for free, but I think the business | model for Funds makes a lot of sense. | piamancini wrote: | You have a point! The goal though is not for one FUND to | support they entire ecosystem but for many funds supporting it. | 1k from one fund and 3k from another for example + recurring | subscriptions from individuals, end up adding up. (disclosure, | I am OC co-founder) | ocdtrekkie wrote: | The problem is that projects by big companies are often | encumbered by their business decisions. Companies rarely find | privacy profitable, so it's usually the first feature to get | rid of, but if they use or need an open source tool that | respects privacy, they may pay for it. | | Funds from tech companies won't alone make open source | development sustainable, but it'll help. | prepend wrote: | All projects are encumbered by business decisions. | | I think open source improves on this problem because now I | can fork and extend because a company open sourced something. | This is not perfect, but it's better than when I can't. | | I think a better approach is trying to encourage more of a | gift economy with people working on stuff for free and | sharing it. | | It's funny how I'm willing to accept some hair and do work | myself as part of a community, but if I have to pay for it, I | lose that community motivation. | | For example, I'm willing to spend time writing up an issue | for an OSS project with a test script, etc. but I won't do | that for a commercial company. | lallysingh wrote: | I don't think the $1k/month would fully cover a full time | engineer. A few similar contributions would. Or an engineer | doing this work as a side project. | cassepipe wrote: | I would rather make 1k a month and work on something I like on | my terms than to have a stressful/meaningless job around the | clock with unpaid working hours all around. There only so much | shit you really need. And you need time for your friends/loved | one. You'll live poorer but longer. | | Edit : This is not a fantasy about poverty being more genuine. | Poverty makes you die sooner. My point is a life spent running | after money and positions is a meaningless life. | | Edit 2: I may have a bias here since I live with under 1k a | month, under my country's minimum wage that is . | breakfastduck wrote: | Appreciate that's the case for you, but under 1k in either | the UK or US or many European countries is completely | untenable for independent living. | cassepipe wrote: | I live in Paris so it's quite expensive. Not making a case | about my lifestyle which is quite spartan I admit but I am | tired of reading people complaining they can't make a | living with only 3k a month, like my father, which feels | kind of obscene to me. The reason my father is complaining | about his financial situation all the time is because is | always trying to buy shit to compensate the time he lost | doing the job he doesn't like. It all ends up in the | basement and when the basement will be full, it'll finally | end up burnt in a land fill next to a village in Malaysia | or something. Don't be my father. | breakfastduck wrote: | I'm more surprised you can even pay rent in Paris & eat | for <1k a month. | | You have to remember peoples circumstances too - many | people have families or live in very expensive areas, | they can't just suddenly stop everything to live on a | lower amount like an individual can. | cassepipe wrote: | I think I live in an expensive area. Rent is 500 euros a | month (which is cheap, but I get what I pay for). Phone | is five euros/month. So is internet (shared). I don't pay | transportation because I think it should be free since I | am not polluting common air with a car. Else I have a | bike. Then I have 400 euros that need to be shared among | food (which is swiftly shoplifted if expensive ;), | clothing (which I already have plenty so I am fine) and | nights out (which at the moment is rather quiet you know | why). I cut my own hair or ask a friend. Short period of | more intense work paid for all the *ware. Rather fine I | must say. | | As I said my point is not to say that everyone should be | like me although I like to show off how not-wealthy I am | for the high of moral superiority. My point is that | thinking you need more money is often intricated with | irrational emotions. It has happened to me various times | to have someone I know is doing fine complaining about | being "tight". When a person that's poor say "I have no | money", it's means the account balance is dangerously | close to 0,when a well off person says so, it means "I | wish I did not have to cut down expenses so I can | maintain my standard of living". | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | > it means "I wish I did not have to cut down expenses so | I can maintain my standard of living" | | Well, we did move on from living in caves for a reason, | you know. | cassepipe wrote: | Yeah that's exactly the reaction I get from those people | when you tell them that maybe they don't need that new | expensive sofa to replace "that one that is already four | year old": "Why u want me to live in a cave? " So I guess | there are only two ways of living : Either live in a | cave, or have two big SUV because you know why moving | 1500 kg of plastic and metal anywhere I go when I can | move 2500 kg? I wish I could insert a Louie Ck video | snippet saying "I deserve a golden watch" | artembugara wrote: | I think my co-founder (CTO of NewsCatcher) is in a very | common situation. He's in a 500 euro flat in 13th | district. | | It's literally everything in one room. Everything. | varispeed wrote: | The exploitation of developers by big corporation must end. It is | crazy that companies make billions out of software they use | without paying contributors a penny. Some companies were able to | amass incredible wealth on the backs of volunteers. I think we | should start pressurise politicians so that they force companies | to pay royalties to open source contributors based on % of | revenue. In many countries (for example in the UK) it is illegal | to work for free (even if you want to) and every worker has to be | paid at least a minimum wage. The same principle should apply to | open source projects. If your company makes money over a certain | threshold you should start paying. Open source software should | only be free for individuals and small businesses. | jahewson wrote: | This is silly. The vast majority of non-toy open source is | written by corporations. I've made substantial open source | contributions over the years but I've consumed far more value | than I ever created, all for free. Maybe you think I should be | paying those corporations? | jayp1418 wrote: | Something like this ? https://licensezero.com/ | hpoe wrote: | I don't disagree with the sentiment but I do disagree with the | implementation part of way Free Software (free as in speech) | works is because I can do whatever I want with it, if I don't | want to charge I shouldn't be forced to. Tbh what you are | suggesting sounds like getting rid of FOSS entirely and | bringing it back under the guise of Freeware. | | If you really don't want corporations to benefit off your work | without contributing back go GPL or stop maintaining it. | varispeed wrote: | The thing is that not every developer is in a privileged | position to provide work without payment. Good example are | unpaid internships - if you want to gain experience, but you | are coming from a poor background, you are unlikely going to | sign up for such internship, because you will not have means | to pay bills and so you are forced to find job that pays, not | even necessarily in the field you would want. This creates | divide, because only people from privileged backgrounds can | gain experience this way and in the end get better jobs. | That's why in many countries (for example in the UK) unpaid | internships are illegal to create a level playing field. I | think it should not be allowed to give away your work for | free (to corporations) because of that. Then if you really | don't want this money, you could send it to a charity of your | choice. Such way would be much fairer to everyone. | hpoe wrote: | Sure but we are talking about developing FOSS software not | unpaid internships. So what relevance does your comment | have towards me wanting to realease Free Software? | varispeed wrote: | Not every developer is in a privileged position to | contribute to open source projects, because they have | bills to pay and have to commit time to do paid work. | This can compromise their changes at getting better jobs, | as employers tend to look whether someone has open source | contributions in their resume. Very often it is not even | possible to show any code from previous jobs, because it | is confidential. This is just one of angles where this | kind of model creates social divide. | matz1 wrote: | Sure, its not everyone. On the other hand it also suck to | be forced to pay. | DC1350 wrote: | > The exploitation of developers by big corporation must end. | | Why do people choose to work for free on open source projects | that are mostly used by businesses? I can completely understand | making things that are hard to monetize, user facing | applications, or trying to learn something. But when I see free | contributions to things like infrastructure management I just | don't get it. Why wouldn't you just get a job doing this if | there's obviously a business demand for it? If I made something | for free that was primarily used by people who made money off | of my work it would completely kill my motivation and I would | feel taken advantage of. | varispeed wrote: | In my opinion those people are in privileged position - they | already have money, they don't have to worry what they are | going to eat if they don't do work and so on, so they show | off. It's kind of like a rich person driving around in his or | hers Lambo. They do this work for free and then there is less | work for people who cannot work for free. Why would company | hire anyone if they get free contributions. | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | Is there really a lack of demand for software developers of | the level that can contribute quality open source | contributions? | glsdfgkjsklfj wrote: | people do not stay on projects forever and then they are | literally stolen. Or companies adopt a project and then throw | their weight around. | | for the former case: do you think former gnome contributors | (who started the project exactly because their feared the | ossification of window managers trying to copy windows, see | their https://web.archive.org/web/19990224084927/http://www.g | nome.... manifesto) would be happy with designers that ignore | users and copy everything from osx? | | for the second case, just look up how much linus fought | against tainted kernel and still ended up giving up because | of corporate/funding pressure. Also how google employees do | whatever they want to chromium, for example, removing every | single contribution to restrict referrer because that is how | they made money from clicks on google search ads. | mb7733 wrote: | > I think we should start pressurise politicians so that they | force companies to pay royalties to open source contributors | based on % of revenue. | | ...If someone makes something and gives it out for free, the | government can't retroactively force users to pay for it. It's | up to the creator to choose a different lisence. | varispeed wrote: | It is not retroactive, but "from now on" with a grace period. | Granting a free license will not be legal, except for | individuals, charities, non-profit organisations and SME. You | may think that this is wrong, because this has been a status | quo and big corporations were doing a great PR to keep it | that way, but this is extremely damaging to society. | aaron-santos wrote: | The government makes people retroactively pay for stuff all | the time. It's the basis for torts. | leppr wrote: | Yes, so the first step is to stop demonizing projects that opt | for alternative "source available" licenses, and stop idolizing | one canonical definition of capital O "Open-Source" licenses. | | Despite most everyone implicitly associating open source with | gratis, it's not a requirement or even preferable in my | opinion. The benefits of OSS to users are all still there with | paid software. | | Tangentially this makes me think of a recent phenomenon I'm | sure many OSS advocates love to ridicule or trivialize, but | which shows at least an attempt to solve the problem of | compensation for freely replicable work: NFTs. If you manage to | see past the mainstream view that people are "buying links to | jpeg files", and rather understand that people are paying for | public recognition of patronage, there's something to be said | about their ability to get people to pay for "open source" | work. | karussell wrote: | Can you list a project with a big community that has a | "source available" license right from the start? I won't | demonize these projects but people prefer "open source" over | "source available" for a reason. | kfarr wrote: | JWPlayer | Qwertious wrote: | The problem is that sources available destroys the antitrust | forking feature that's core to open source. | | MySQL/MariaDB, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, Cyanogenmod/LineageOS, | a couple others had the IP go to someone who didn't have an | incentive to develop it properly, so didn't. Source Available | permits this with no real recourse. | | Agreed on the NFT comment, BTW. | phkahler wrote: | >> The exploitation of developers by big corporation must end. | | GPLv3 plus a commercial license will go a long way toward that. | dv_dt wrote: | I was about to post the same. Pragmatically a collective | company that could help carry the administrative work with | open source projects would be interesting. Project with a | nominal GPLv3 license while allowing paid relaxation of the | terms (GPLv2 or commercial, etc) could bring in some revenue. | [deleted] | watwut wrote: | Majority of FOSS development is paid for - by big companies. | | There is this sticky idea of imaginary army of open source | developers who produce full time job worth of effort and live | from thin air and don't have to pay rent. And who do all that | boring routine and difficult work of maintaining, merging, | reviewing, patching, testing and so on for passion alone. | vpattons wrote: | This is not true except for very specific projects like the | Linux Kernel. | | On other projects that weren't started in companies from the | start you _see paid FOSS developers doing maintenance_. | | Whether that is money well spent or if these developers ever | do anything creative or original is another question. | watwut wrote: | > On other projects that weren't started in companies from | the start you see paid FOSS developers doing maintenance | | How is that not development paid by companies and how | exactly is that exploitation by big companies? You | literally claimed it is paid by them. | karussell wrote: | It may sound unfair but that is exactly what an open source | license means: you release something for others to use without | a payment requirement. If you are a developer and your | intention is to make money then you should create a business | around your project or if you find it unfair just stop | releasing it under open source :) | vulcan01 wrote: | > In many countries (for example in the UK) it is illegal to | work for free (even if you want to) and every worker has to be | paid at least a minimum wage. | | This is slightly off-topic, but how does volunteering work? | varispeed wrote: | The exemption is for charities and not for profit | organisations. | monocasa wrote: | Surely I can, say, build a fence for my pensioner neighbor | without them having to form a non profit or pay me? | dt3ft wrote: | The change has to start with us. Developers should value their | work, and stop going for virtual stars and points. | | I used to determine my self-worth through the number of stars | my GitHub project had. Boy oh boy was that silly, looking back | at it. 1.2k stars on GitHub... and god knows who profited off | it. Me on the other hand? Meh. Would someone like to buy my | 1.2k GitHub stars? :D | aaron-santos wrote: | Monetize your Github stars with a NFT. | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | Open source, like open science, is public good, that's value | enough for me. It's a way to do good that's both aligned with | my principles and personally stimulating. I'm not motivated | by points or stars, recognition, money or self-worth, and I | suspect I'm not in the minority. | pimterry wrote: | How does this compare to https://tidelift.com/? | | My impression is they're fairly similar at first glance: | companies can pay open-source funding to one central service, who | redistribute to each of the appropriate individual maintainers & | projects behind the scenes. I'm sure there's a bunch of practical | differences in the details though? | benjamuk wrote: | Hey, Head of Product at Open Collective (and former Tidelift | employee) here: | | As far as I am aware Tidelift pays maintainers in exchange for | a minimal set of commitments, which is used to sell the | Tidelift subscription. They curate packages of 'known good' | open source projects for enterprises and provide a set tools | for users to better understand what software they depend upon. | | Funds is a little more free-format, facilitating a relationship | between maintainers and organisations on their own terms. No | contracts, no promises, no agendas. We take on the work of | administrating payments to projects and of ensuring companies | have what they need in their procurement processes. | | In doing so we hope to lower the barriers to the degree that we | broaden access to funding for open source. | Qwertious wrote: | >we hope to lower the barriers to the degree that we broaden | access to funding for open source. | | Q: who is the primary demographic of funders this is aimed | at? Am I correct in saying it's mostly aimed at getting more | _corporate_ funding for OSS? (Non-rhetorical question) | genericone wrote: | Doesn't this enable maintainers to look at someone's | submitted code, deny its inclusion for any reason | personal/financial, and include it at a later date and claim | expense? Since the code submission is open-source, isn't a | malicious maintainer able to basically copy the code in- | spirit under a pseudo-account, and then claim the benefits | from the fund for themself? I'm just saying that once | monetary benefits are involved, incentives skew away from | code quality and community, and towards number one. | | Maintainers are above the other developers, is there going to | be some community oversight? | | Who decides how much expense can be claimed? | Sargos wrote: | I prefer the quadratic funding method over direct corporate | sponsorship as it allows more niche projects to get funded and | average people to participate in the system. You can even have | Google add $1million to a pool and then have individuals in the | open source community distribute that out to projects based on | need and utility. | | For background see https://wtfisqf.com/ and Gitcoin Grants. | Quadratic funding has been used to fund Ethereum public goods for | a few years and it works pretty well. | alannallama wrote: | Just correcting the quadratic funding link: https://fundoss.org | - launching soon! | piamancini wrote: | yes~ check this out: funoss.org coming soon (disclosure, I am | Open collective co-founder) | pron wrote: | Some people are under the impression that the corporate world and | open-source are separate, whereas a very significant part of | open-source is already corporate. Linux, Chromium, OpenJDK, V8, | MySQL, PostgreSQL, Tensor Flow, Elastic Search, Kubernetes, | Redis, and many, many other of the biggest, most influential open | source projects are overwhelmingly developed by people paid by | for-profit corporations to work on those projects. Getting | corporations to fund smaller, more independent, projects might be | a good idea, but those two worlds are already just one. | karussell wrote: | nit-pick: Elastic Search is not open-source (anymore) | bosswipe wrote: | It is not Open Source(tm), but it is open source. | cperciva wrote: | Indeed, that should say Open Distro for Elasticsearch. | erezsh wrote: | nit-pick: Only according to the OSI, whose credibility within | the community isn't what it once was. | karussell wrote: | Also according to many people in and outside of the | community. OSI or free software definitions are meant to | give the contributor the same rights which they don't have | for a "source available" license. Under a "source | available" license ES would have never gained the same | popularity nor commercial success. (Don't understand me | wrong: ES can do what they want with their code but | advertising it as "it is the same for most people" is | untrue) | erezsh wrote: | I'm not saying Elastic's model is the open-source ideal. | But a product that can't find a financial model won't | exist either. | | ES may not give their contributors the same rights on | paper, but in practice there is no discernable | difference, other than that the contributors aren't | allowed to directly compete with them (iirc). | Daho0n wrote: | So open but not free. | erhk wrote: | So how do you crowd source a project worth keeping right now? A | tool that poisons data for Google analytics would hardly be | funded by them. At a certain point we simply cannot allow | companies to be the only ones holding the reigns. | wolftune wrote: | No easy answers. We're trying to address that at | Snowdrift.coop but are ourselves struggling volunteers not | getting fully launched still (but not giving up, still at | it). | | Most efforts do seem focused on corporate open-source. The | under-funding of that stuff is indeed an issue. But it | doesn't result in real public goods that treat the public | well if it's all upstream stuff that only serves to make | proprietary downstream end-user products. | andrewaylett wrote: | Thank you for the work you've put into Snowdrift -- I'm | still very excited for the project. Getting fairly close to | my first charge now, actually :). | david_allison wrote: | Kudos to Open Collective (for this, and for existing in general). | | The article doesn't go into detail, but it also appears to | streamline the workflow of requesting money from an open source | project's perspective. | | Each fund[0] appears to have a "Request Grant" button, which is | great, as it'll mean maintainers will hopefully have a curated | list of contactable organisations if they need funding for a | specific initiative. | | The barriers to entry here are extremely high: a few days ago I | was looking into corporate sponsorship for a non open-source- | related event, and after a couple of hours of Googling I was | mostly unable to find contact details for relevant companies. | It's definitely a natural barrier to entry which will be reduced | with experience, but it will gatekeep a lot of interesting | projects where organisers aren't experienced in fundraising. | | Reducing this friction for Open Source projects should allow the | money to much more easily go to where it's needed. | | [0] Example fund: https://opencollective.com/indeed | alannallama wrote: | Open Collective team member here. You're so right! We have been | able to form partnerships with many big tech companies and | grantmaking foundations, and it really opens up possibilities | for projects to access them. Since we collectively represent so | many projects we can use that scale to open doors, and on a | practical level once we're in their supplier systems and have | gone through their due diligence processes once, future funding | is much easier. | hnedeotes wrote: | Everything moving forward in this space is great. | | Ideal world - You declare your stack, from OS, distributor up to | all dependencies used. | | Non-profit/individuals non-profit don't pay anything. | | Everyone else/companies pay $0.01 per dependency, per month. Each | package (at each layer) describes its own dependencies. So a | docker image, installing ubuntu (ubuntu declares its own | dependencies - libc, curl, git, whatever), running npm, and all | node packages, and you take a bill of cost from this "bundle". If | dependencies share dependencies it only counts as 1 no matter how | many times it's repeated in a single setup. | | If there's 1million servers running linux, that's 10k for the | linux foundation per month. Probably there would need to be a | tiering of cost/distribution, as a left-pad node package isn't | worth the same as a linux distribution, and companies with + a | certain threshold should perhaps pay more. | | The benefits would be that people would stop installing 10.000 | npm libs as they gets expensive fast, so people would try to | write more comprehensive libs and the quality would go up. | | You don't need to poke holes in the idea, it's basically an open | ocean, but it would be nice to see something totally automated | like this. | benatkin wrote: | That isn't ideal at all. That's gittip - people forced to | publicly receive contributions whether they want them or not. | wolftune wrote: | You are thinking of tip4commit. Gittip later became Gratipay | and then closed (but the fork at Liberapay still exists). | Gittip never collected contributions for people who didn't | first sign up. Gittip/Gratipay did _other_ reckless things, | but that 's a separate matter. | hnedeotes wrote: | Well perhaps this vapourware platform would have an option | for you to redirect whatever funds to somewhere else? | | (while making it clear on your package page that you were | doing so) | prepend wrote: | That sounds very confusing and requires invasive license | auditing to enforce. | | You can also do this by just paying into a commercial stack. | The beauty of OSS is that it's easy to use and reuse. | | I'd rather just pay Microsoft than use a scheme where I pay by | the number of dependencies. | | Also, not that I release a ton of packages, but I do contribute | some here and there. I would not contribute to commercial | packages where my labor benefits some org. | | And I would still release packages under a permissive license | that allows for reuse without any compensation to me. | hnedeotes wrote: | Just for sports. | | > I'd rather just pay Microsoft than use a scheme where I pay | by the number of dependencies. | | So you wouldn't want to support OSS, you would rather support | a company. | | > I would not contribute to commercial packages where my | labor benefits some org. | | That would be your call for sure. | | > And I would still release packages under a permissive | license that allows for reuse without any compensation to me. | | This would be your prerogative as well. | | Let's pretend we have in place the infrastructure. A place | where anyone can submit a bill of usage, and do payments, and | this holds the payments and a person can register their | software there. For your use case it would have even the | possibility of you redirecting the funds you don't want into | other projects. Perhaps a badge on your profile, | "redirector", "open hands", wtv. | | Let's imagine that every piece of software besides a | "readme.md" file, has a file describing its dependencies. NPM | would be able to do this like they can build a dependency | graph. Your OS would be able to do this because each | programs/lib would be able to do this/provide their own. | | Let's say there's a piece of software that can pick all these | little files and coalesce them into a single one. | | Now you could build a "package" of what it would cost you, | see what is in there and then just make it part of your | monthly payroll. | | There's no bureaucracy. If you are a company using software | and not paying for it, you would be under breach of contract | and could be sued legally. | erhk wrote: | This is so awful. Can you imagine how people would redesign | tools to minmax their income? | | Add my left pad library as a dependency pull request. | | The damage this would do to OSS would be irreversible. | sokoloff wrote: | Exactly. I agree to split my components into 5 pieces and | use 3 of yours as dependencies. In exchange, you agree to | depend on at least 3 of mine. | | Next year, we each achieve 33% YoY growth by splitting | one of our deps into two pieces 'for increased | modularity' or some other reason totally not financially | motivated. | hnedeotes wrote: | Given it was open source you could see that happening? | You could just like, choose the dependencies you wanted | to use. Like vote with your wallet or something. | sokoloff wrote: | If there's a non-trivial amount of money at stake, I can | 100% see that happening. I'd bet a nearly unlimited | amount of money that it would happen. | | Find a way to get something into a popular Linux distro | and you can micro-split the downstream dependencies over | time. | | "Every time I apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y, my | monthly bill goes up; I better stop doing that..." | hnedeotes wrote: | Yeah definitively. But when I wrote that, I meant you as | an individual consumer wouldn't need to worry about that. | Or someone who writes libraries or packages. Only if you | were running a for profit business. The remaining would | have to be on trust of the community running the packages | but I can definitively entertain the idea of it not | working as expected. | sokoloff wrote: | I'm both an individual consumer and a professional | working for a for-profit business in most computing | circumstances at home. Same for my permanently working- | from-home freelancer spouse. | | My network gear and proxmox server and TrueNAS and | Synology all run open-source software and all four of | those support both personal and for-profit activities to | different degrees. | | The Plex container is clearly fully personal, but the | Unifi controller and backups use cases are mixed, and the | standalone Ubuntu container is fully for-profit, all | running on a mixed Proxmox. Which ones get charged and | which ones are free? | gervwyk wrote: | Yeah. I Agree with you. | | Also been thinking about a similar concept for a while. | For the negative effects some have mentioned, one could | also argue the possibility of a positive effect to make | things more open and result in better quality / funded / | open projects. | | As an idea an addition to this could be a community trust | score where users also get to vote on a few aspects of a | project, like 'is it well maintained?', 'do you | understand changes in version updates?' etc. maybe bad | examples, but a few simple metrics which can give a | project a good or bad rep based on what the maintainers | does as presented by the community - not just nit-picked | twitter quotes. Yes, these will need to be crafted | carefully so that maintainer cannot game them but the | result could be projects getting paid well for doing | things that builds trust and makes the project more | accessible. | | Of course I could just look at the PR history and issues | etc before I use a new package, but I would trust | community feedback more than my 30 min deep dive. | | Today we only have very vague metrics like npm popularity | or github stars, which is very hard to accurately judge | what package to choose or not. | hnedeotes wrote: | Well, given that you could decide the things you use, I | would imagine things would move towards some sort of | cleanup? | | And open source maintainers would be open to refuse PR's | like they're now? | prepend wrote: | > So you wouldn't want to support OSS, you would rather | support a company. | | If I'm paying for it, it's not open source. I'd rather pay | a single company with a "simple"license, than something | that costs me more when someone uses a leftpad package than | just writing their own. I don't want to have to have cost | decisions factor into my design at that level. | | Having the legal support to plan out if I'm under breach or | not is expensive. | | One of the things I like about OSS is I can avoid that. | Paying and still having that threat is the worse of both | worlds. | | Also, unpredictable prices are really hard in my org. | Having my payroll vary month to month on what's happening | is really hard. Do I pay based on when I compile? When I | run? What if I want to have 10 test environments, so I pay | times 10. What if I need to archive and might never run it, | but need to make sure I can run it, do I pay. Etc etc. | There's a million different permutations based on project | needs that vary by people. | | With OSS, I can clearly plan and address all these. With | commercial licenses, I usually can since I get a perpetual | license per seat or cpu or whatever. | | This new scheme would be really complex and include a lot | of latent risk, and require that I'm constantly open to | audit by some org. And audits are expensive to receive and | support. No thanks, I'll just skip using it and use OSS | versions. | hnedeotes wrote: | It's open source except if you're profiting for it. | | I don't know if my english is rudimentary or something. | No, you would pay per month, it would be automated. We | could throw it on the block chain, or have an AI | calculate it. | | If you never run it you never run it, if it's part of | your business backup plan you pay it. | | With OSS for sure, you just go 0$ monthly payments, most | straightforward payment plan ever, can't argue with that. | | > I usually can since I get a perpetual license per seat | or cpu or whatever. | | Well, subscriptions are the future. | prepend wrote: | > Well, subscriptions are the future. | | I hope not. Subscriptions for software are a pain and | something I try to avoid. | hnedeotes wrote: | Me too :) | phillipcarter wrote: | > If I'm paying for it, it's not open source. | | Open source and free are two separate things. | | There are many projects out there that require a license | for commercial use of the software because it's an | attempt to make the project more sustainable. | | Don't be surprised if more and more projects go down this | route. The current model of giving corporations big | freebies to make lots of money off of, and then often | getting no financial or developer support for that, isn't | sustainable and there's a massive burnout problem because | of that. Times are good now, but just wait until a few | things in your core infrastructure don't get patched or | worse, they get archived, because the maintainer is tired | of spending evenings fixing your problems for free. | prepend wrote: | > Open source and free are two separate things. | | When I use the term open source, I mean "OSI license" as | that's what I think is most important. That means free. | | Projects are free to do whatever they want, and choosing | a closed source license that's not free is their | prerogative. More power to them. I probably will never | buy anything from them, but I harbor no ill will. | | But when it comes to supporting OSS, I'll do it as I've | been for the past few decades; using and contributing to | it. | | Note this is different than "fixing your problems for | free" and I've funded a shitload of consulting to fix my | problems with OSS. I don't think it's reasonable to | expect a problem to be fixed for free. Just like it's | unreasonable to expect that I must pay certain developers | to fix problems in open source. | | I find it funny when people say things aren't sustainable | and there are 20-50 year old projects and communities | that are clearly sustainable and on multiple generations | of developers. | | "Not sustainable for me to do it" is very different from | "not sustainable." It's ok that not everyone who wants to | make a living doing something can't afford to do it, | that's not a problem we need to solve as a society. | hnedeotes wrote: | > I'd rather just pay Microsoft than use a scheme where I pay | by the number of dependencies. | | The beauty here is if Microsoft was using OSS they would need | to pay still on their own bills of usage. | phillipcarter wrote: | Microsoft actually has a pretty cool OSS funding campaign | that bypasses a lot of the "ugh, but the paperwork to get | this funded is insane" stuff and just lets engineers | nominate and vote on projects: | https://github.com/microsoft-sponsorships/microsoft-foss- | fun... | | I've voted several times and think it's a great model. It | was pioneered by Indeed and is likely also adopted | elsewhere. | hnedeotes wrote: | I think it's better than nothing to be honest. The only | thing is, it's voluntary, so in that sense it's always a | bit like charity, and it's always towards a given project | at large and not spread. But I have no horse in this | race. | ISL wrote: | That contributions are voluntary can be a strength, not a | weakness. | hutzlibu wrote: | "Everyone else/companies pay $0.01 per dependency, per month." | | Yup. Open ocean. Because that just creates incentive to make a | looooong dependency list. | | Also, don't you think the complexity of packages are very | different and it is therefore not fair, to make them all equal? | hnedeotes wrote: | Of course, but even $500 per month is more than $0. | | > Yup. Open ocean. Because that just creates incentive to | make a looooong dependency list. | | Well, perhaps no? Since those things don't get into your list | by themselves I would think that it would incentivise the | opposite. If whatever lib you're using has 100 dependencies, | one for left-pad, the other for right, one for switching | underscores for hyphens, this would make someone come and | say, I can make this with much less cruft. | | But still, if the dependencies are repeated across | dependencies they wouldn't increase. So if you use 2 packages | that both use say "curl", for your "bundle" it would still be | only 1 entry for curl. | hutzlibu wrote: | If money is involved, fraudsters will get involved. | | You want to argue with people that their long dependency | list is totally unneccecary? That will become the norm, if | this is the metric on how much income everyone would get. | The higher the number of packages - the higher the pay. | | Does not reflect reality, where one package can be a | million times more complex, than simple 100 packages. | [deleted] | IncRnd wrote: | > Non-profit/individuals non-profit don't pay anything. | | >Everyone else/companies pay $0.01 per dependency, per month. | | This isn't going to be both scalable and sustainable. You will | find that people will calculate the cost of this vs. the cost | of being a non-profit. It also isn't going to work where a | small dependency gets the same payout as a more complicated | dependency. | hnedeotes wrote: | So, if 0 is sustainable, this would also be? | | You mean they would become a non-profit so they wouldn't have | to shell 50 bucks a month? | | The dependency values wouldn't need to be $0.01. Maybe if the | theory about free markets is true, then it would somehow be | guided by the invisible hand, and we would let linux charge | the amount of $0.10 per month. With 1M commercial servers | that would be 100k per month. Not faang salaries I know. | Maybe left pad could be paid in bitcoin, so we could have | like fractionality towards infinity. | temac wrote: | > Non-profit/individuals non-profit don't pay anything. | | > Everyone else/companies pay $0.01 per dependency, per month. | | I don't get that dichotomy? People can do what they want, no? | So are you simply saying that individual would be far less | likely to fund open source software, while companies and | assimilated would? | | Or you would just want it to be mandatory for companies? | | If the latter, that would be completely incompatible with Open | Source. | hnedeotes wrote: | Yes, imagining what I was saying it would be mandatory if | your company was making a profit while using software that | agreed to this. | | The difference would be if you're setting up a blog to share | your permaculture posts, you wouldn't need to pay, or | something like that. | | If you as a software author didn't want you could always put | that the cost to use your package was $0? | [deleted] | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | What if the company was losing money? What if the | permaculture blog was monetized by AdSense or something | else? | temac wrote: | There is not even a "what if" to apply; it would be | _fundamentally_ contrary to Open Source and Free Software | (violates freedom 0) | | And I've nothing against people who want to invent new | models. Just: this can't apply to the whole current Open | Source / Free Software corpus and ecosystem. And this new | model will never be able to mix. | | Payed license does not need to be created anyway. This | already widely exist and this is just proprietary | software. And among proprietary software, there are also | licenses that are incompatible between each others. And | proprietary licenses that don't require monetary paiement | from individuals. | | So does creating new proprietary licenses that would be | obviously incompatible with Free Software licenses, and | probably incompatible with most other proprietary | licenses, would achieve anything interesting? I doubt it. | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | You've summed up the problem I have with OP's arguments. | | OSS already has a number of available licenses of varying | levels of freedom that lets the creator decide how their | creation should be used. | | This entire discussion reads like "you developers are | idiots who don't realize you're being taken advantage | of." Whenever someone starts their argument with the | (implicit or explicit) assumption that they are smarter | than everyone else, my experience tells me that there's a | hidden agenda in there somewhere. In this case it seems | to be as trite as "corporations bad, people good" which, | not to put too fine a point on it, is bullshit. | hnedeotes wrote: | Yeah, the illuminati agenda. | hnedeotes wrote: | Yeah the word profit was badly used. We could imagine it | would be a regular cost and just like you wouldn't be | able to forfeit paying for printer paper because you're | not turning a profit you wouldn't either in this case. | | The AdSense and other forms of monetisation would be | indeed trickier, as well as more complex usage patterns. | Like if a business spins up a lot of machines, how would | that go, perhaps charging for each machine the same would | be too expensive. But charging just once would be unfair. | Perhaps that could be somehow split/incorporated into | what is charged to the end user, where it would just be a | cost of running the service, the providers would do it on | their end. Perhaps the licensing would be flexible, so | you paid for some cloud provider they did the payment and | as part of the invoice you would have this bill of usage | as well. I would also imagine that no one would try to | prosecute a guy using a blog, at the same time if they're | doing adsense that blog/domain would be registered. | | It's not like I've spent more than the time it took me to | write that thinking about it. If it was to work I also | doubt it would be something that would come out right at | the first iteration(s). It was more like, "wouldn't it be | great if we had some sort of automatic distribution of | credit that would somehow flow directly back to the | source" but at the same time keeping the spirit of open | source. It could possibly also align further, in a | symbiotic way, service providers and open source as | better software would mean lower costs, better | integration, more time for tooling, etc. Or it could work | the opposite and give rise to a gamed ecosystem. | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | See my response to /u/temac below. I think the entire | problem with your argument is that you're trying to | decide what someone should do with their work. | | If I decide to spend thousands of hours writing software | (or building a boat for that matter) and give it away for | someone to make a profit with, that should be entirely | _my decision._ The entire discussion is so patronizing I | 'm having trouble believing that I'm reading this. People | aren't stupid: don't assume you know what's good for them | better than they do. We all have our various motivations | whether or not they make sense to someone else on the | outside. | | > "wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of automatic | distribution of credit that would somehow flow directly | back to the source" | | You mean like GPL2? | hnedeotes wrote: | The only one being patronising is you? How would this, | hypothetical vapourware distribution system, steal your, | or anyone, choice of doing whatever you want with your | code? I think that if you read this and that's your | conclusion it would seem that the only one assuming | something would be you? You can just scroll up and read | my post again. | | It seems you're the one saying that others shouldn't have | the choice of doing that? What would it matter to you if | someone decided to do that for their own packages. How | would that be different from using GPL on their own | volition? | dv_dt wrote: | It's interesting to look at other copyright collective | approaches in other copyrightable works like music. Though I'm | sure the exact models actually shouldn't be followed, it bears | looking at, with ASCAP being an interesting example. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers%... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective | ddevault wrote: | Linux is one of the world's most popular open source projects | and represents the collaborative efforts of tens of thousands | of software engineers. $10,000 per month might pay for two full | time engineers. | | Thankfully, that's not what OC is proposing. | eeZah7Ux wrote: | > $10,000 per month might pay for two full time engineers | | A good kernel engineer is paid well above $60K a year. | ddevault wrote: | Aye, hence the "might". They'd have to accept well below | market rates. | eeZah7Ux wrote: | ...or the projects would have to accept not-so-good | engineers. :( | | Unfortunately, money brings in risks around project | quality and integrity. | hnedeotes wrote: | That was an example, with an explicit note about it. Geez. | Nothing would prevent people or companies to further invest, | donate or write love songs about it. | | 10.000 would still be 10.000 more than 0 right or is my math | wrong? | ddevault wrote: | A platitude can often be worse than nothing at all. You've | "solved" the problem, and now we can all go back to | ignoring it. I'm more interested in real, scalable, | sustainable funding solutions, than in continuing to give | FOSS devs whatever crumbs may fall off of the SV dinner | table. I'm certainly not going to pat anyone on the back | for it. | hnedeotes wrote: | Sure, let's just move forward with the cake then. | eeZah7Ux wrote: | The last thing we need is to reward libraries by popularity and | quantity rather than quality. | | Just like in academia and industry, our work should be reviewed | by peers with relevant and proven experience. | | The fact that some thing of NPM installs, github stars and | reddit upvotes as a measure of merit says a lot about the | immaturity of the software industry. | hnedeotes wrote: | This would be rewarded by usage? | atomashpolskiy wrote: | Easier to add OSS tax into the social security payments. The | difficult part is collecting usage analytics so that funds get | distributed "fairly". | zrail wrote: | UBI and universal healthcare would make this a complete non- | issue, as well as benefiting the arts and humanities. | scaladev wrote: | TBH I have absolutely no desire to pay taxes for yet another | JavaScript framework. I'd be happy to set aside, say, 5% of | my monthly salary to be divided between the applications and | libraries I actually use. (I do something like this, but | manually and pretty unfairly, because it's difficult to cover | thousands of projects with any meaningful sum as I don't have | billions in my banking account). | | The OS of my choice has this: | | https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/ | | although it would probably be easy to inflate these numbers | if your income depended on it. | bombcar wrote: | What I would like to see is a "Support Open Source" or similar | add-on available at the cloud providers. | | For example my company pays Linode to do backups - I'd love to be | add a similar "percentage of the VM cost" to each box for open | source support (so it goes to support projects). Something like | 10% of the VM cost would be great - easy to get approval for and | doesn't have the "donation" wording around it. | benatkin wrote: | These funders are more like advertisers - paying for their logo | on a web page. | kalyani9 wrote: | It should be free for cool people. Everybody else, pays. Like a | club. | caniszczyk wrote: | Is OpenCollective a for profit company or non profit? The | marketing is a bit confusing: | https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/opencollective | | So a private company is taking a cut of each transaction headed | to an open source project? | piamancini wrote: | Hi Chris! Open Collective Inc. is a for profit company, we | develop and run the open collective platform, | opencollective.com The Open Source Collective is a non profit, | a 501c6 that gives fiscal sponsorship to projects so they can | receive project directed funding. The value prop is having both | the platform to receive and disburse funds transparently and | the non profit that holds the funds, does compliance, reports | taxes, etc. | yyy888sss wrote: | If anything, a platform like this could also itself be an open | source project. | piamancini wrote: | oh but it is! github.com/opencollective :) | LegitShady wrote: | Nailed it ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-25 23:01 UTC)