Show HN: KickStarter for open source projects and LinkedIn for OSS contributors
openteams.com
openteams.com
Organizations are disconnected from the communities and lack support and maintenance from the open source projects they depend on. Open source teams are burned out, underpaid, underrepresented. These problems have made open source software difficult to maintain.
This is the reason Travis started OpenTeams, a marketplace to connect open source communities with organizations. On one side of the marketplace, we connect companies with teams to help fund project development and maintenance. On the other side, we create a way for open source contributors to showcase their work, help them get recognized for their work and hired to work on projects they care about. Put simply, it’s like a KickStarter for open source projects and a LinkedIn for open source contributors.
Please give us feedback to help make open source software sustainable.
Thank you!
We focused on building out the contributor side of the marketplace first. However, we are now focusing on building out both sides of the marketplace in parallel.
I have had the privilege of watching open-source projects I started or participated in get used by millions. I want to see a world where more people are paid a great living to work on open-source software. There are several approaches to improving the funding fabric for open-source. OpenTeams is one of them. Quansight Initiate (http://www.qi.ventures) is another one. Quansight Labs (http://labs.quansight.org) and Quansight (http://www.quansight.com) are others. A group of us are also working on a few other ideas including FairOSS (not going to give the website because it is a behind-the scenes operation for now --- ping me if you are interested in learning more).
I have spent many years writing open-source software, improving open-source ecosystems, hiring open-source developers, and paying people to work on open-source software. I have also spent the past 12 years in particular working in industry watching open-source get used and seeing the disconnect between open-source usage and open-source communities.
There are several business models that can work to improve things. With OpenTeams we are building out a platform and ecosystem to help open-source communities thrive by directing money from industries that use them to the communities that exist while also learning from the basic laws of incentive alignment and local choice making that are at the heart of every economy.
One of my core believes is that not all software will be or should be open source. I don't make this conclusion lightly. However all software will be based on and use open source foundations. Those communities that produce these foundations should be able to thrive and yet retain their freedom and self direction.
OpenTeams is a platform to make that happen by connecting companies that use open-source and want to fund specific features and improvements with organizations that hire open-source developers to work on proposals that have input from community participants and leaders. Some initiatives will be new projects, some will be usability improvements and feature proposals for existing projects. An effect of OpenTeams is also to enable a place for all open-source contributors to build their reputation (not just contributions that lead to pull-requests).
We are in a pre-alpha stage at the moment, but will be continuing to add features and are open to suggestions and ideas.
Thanks for your feedback.
However, if it is, I think it's a terrible model for OSS development, or for funding development in general. I develop Cursive (https://cursive-ide.com), an IDE for Clojure code. When I was starting out and deciding how to fund it, lots of people told me I should do a Kickstarter like Light Table, another popular Clojure IDE. I decided not to and instead did the old-school thing of actually charging for the value I create. 4 years later, Cursive is going great and Light Table has been dead for years, despite obtaining $315k (IIRC) in Kickstarter funding.
So what went wrong with Light Table? The problem is that that funding is not ongoing, it's a one-off thing. $315k sounds like a lot of money, but if you have a couple of people living in San Francisco, you burn through it very quickly. When that money runs out, what do you do? It's really hard to go back and ask for more, and even if you do you're only kicking the can down the road - a year later or whatever you have the same problem again.
Obviously Cursive is not directly comparable to OSS development since it's closed-source and commercial. But the principle remains the same - development needs ongoing funding, not lump sums. As distasteful as it is to many developers, the model that best matches the actual requirements of funding software development is subscription pricing. When I was discussing possible licensing models on my mailing list, one of my users made this point more eloquently than I could:
Software is never delivered as a complete static product, it evolves over time to meet the needs of its users. Perpetual licensing leaves developers in the awkward position of deciding to support that product forever for free, or releasing new paid-for versions regularly and stepping onto the feature treadmill where you have to keep delivering 'value' to attract users away from your old versions. Perpetual licensing is bad for developers and bad for users.
As I said above, I couldn't work out whether OpenTeams is actually more similar to Kickstarter or something like Patreon. I really hope they're aiming for ongoing funding and not one-off lump sums.
Our KickStarter style funding events are called Initiatives. Please visit our early Initiatives page and you will find two projects we are already helping to get funding. We say it is a KickStarter for open source projects because it is a marketplace where companies that use open source software can connect with companies/individuals that will commit on a commercial basis to advance project roadmaps and maintenance. This is similar to KickStarter in the sense that the public (one side of the market place) is funding the project (other side of the marketplace) in return for a promise to use a product/service in the future when it is available.
Unlike Closjure, the projects that start an Initiative will be open source. Additionally, the feature/maintenance that the project releases as a result of the Initiative will also be open source.
Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and many other large companies donate to open source software for a number of reasons. Typically, it is to fund a new feature or to help maintain the project. We are creating a platform for these companies to better fund the projects they rely on (and already fund).
These projects aren't restricted to one Initiative. They can start as many Initiatives as they desire. Of course, the success of the Initiative is dependent on the supply of funding.
With regards to ongoing funding, projects can create an Initiative for maintaining the project which, while it is a lump sum, can be distributed to the maintainers over time (under contract). In this sense, it is similar to the world of startup funding: when you've run out of money, you ask for more and continue to grow.
One suggestion I have is to use plainer language when describing what this actually is, especially on your landing page. Here in the comments, when describing the project you've repeatedly described it as a marketplace, which makes sense to me. However that word or description doesn't appear at all on your landing page, and after reading the whole page I'm really none the wiser about how it works.
The way you describe all this, it sounds very complicated, but I'm wondering if it really is that complicated in practice. I'd suggest trying to have a "How does the funding work?" section on your landing page, and try to get that section under (say) 100 words. If you can't describe it that briefly, I'd gently suggest that you should try to make the way it works simpler.
In this sense, it is similar to the world of startup funding: when you've run out of money, you ask for more and continue to grow.
I think that's fair enough, especially once it's understood that it's mostly companies who are putting up the money, not individuals. Personally, I'd stay clear of the Kickstarter analogy because Kickstarter doesn't have this ability to go back for more money, and that's a killer for software funding.
In practice, a project needs funding. They create an Initiative on our platform with a product roadmap and outline of what they are going to do (maintenance or a new feature). Companies/individuals that use the project go to the website and provide funding. A contract is formed by the OpenPartner (similar to a general contractor) whereby the project only gets the money once certain requirements are fulfilled. The OpenPartner hires contributors to work on the project and those contributors get to work and are paid as they provide deliverables. Everyone then gets to use the updated software.
We will be working on our messaging so thank you for the feedback.
Guess what, most open source code is not developed in Frisco. At least not for pay. You can do a lot with apparently trivial amounts of money, that simply give key volunteer developers the margin of support they need.
put that all together and you have a high cost of living for _most_ developers. "trivial amounts of money" don't go very far in the city.
Yes, you can move to the country but speaking as someone who works remotely, it is NOT easy to get a good remote job with a company that gets remote and there is a ton of competition for each position. So, it's not easy for most of us to just move somewhere cheap and "do a lot with apparently trivial amounts of money" Sure, it's possible. It's just not probable, or likely.
Did you convert the license from open source to proprietary, or was it never open source in the first place?
So I cannot get a point in this comparison: different business models, different licenses, etc.
* © 2019 OpenTeams. All rights reserved.
* https://openteams.com/terms-of-service
Why isn't a project who wants to change the economics of open source, open-source itself? Can you reconsider your licensing choices?
I kind of feel like Patreon and Kickstarter are in the same vein: rent seeking marketplaces that would be better if they were replaced with entirely open source alternatives that belonged to their respective communities. Patreon should be funded via patreon.
If Wikipedia were started today, I worry that it would have ads or be for-profit.
It's open-source, non-profit, and (tries to) fund itself through its own platform: https://en.liberapay.com/Liberapay/donate
Instead of a recurring donation based system, we are creating a marketplace that connects open source software consuming companies to open source consulting and development companies who are proposing fundable roadmaps for new features and maintenance of critical open source software. The KickStarter idea comes from the fact that any person or company can fund the project so that in the future, they can use the software.
The deep social reputation database generated by the OpenTeams’ social reputation network will provide the foundation for proposers to demonstrate their ability to deliver on a fundable project's goals and grant the prospective funders the ability to validate the composition of the team proposed.
We really appreciate your feedback, thank you!
The power of a collective wallet is not something to be taken lightly. Whether it's environmental destruction or divisive politics, I have yet to decide that setting something like this free is for the best interest.
I would like to see an open source license like the GPL that has enforceable, well-defined provisions for environmental protection and human rights.
It seems like to go all the way, a smart contract would need to be used to ensure the transparency that a standard webserver-based infrastructure cannot provide. But credit cards are the standard for online payments so this would put a project in a further category from the start.
We are at the very beginning of our journey and so there are many features to come.
Thank you for your suggestion. We could not agree more with you!
Along those lines, I appreciated login with GitLab!
OpenTeams' vision is to become THE platform for open source innovation.
OpenCollective uses a donation-based model. On the other hand, OpenTeams is creating a marketplace that connects open source software consuming companies to open source consulting and development companies who are proposing fundable roadmaps for new features and maintenance of critical open source software.
I never heard of it again. I like the idea, but it might not be the easiest to get off the ground. Why not just use Kickstarter? (Except that they're doing union busting, I know).
In my view this is a natural next step for open source as it closes the loop on users who don't contribute code but do use the software. Now they can contribute financially, in theory fueling more code contributors (in practice, most bounties I've seen are not worth the work, but I've only had my eye on one obscure little open source game, so this may not be representative).
I think Kickstarter is not great for this model simply because it has a fixed end date for fundraising and there is less of a direct tie to specific features in a particular codebase.
Check out our early Initiatives page and you'll find two early projects we are currently working with to get funding.
Thanks for your awesome comment!
While KickStarter might be useful to get funding for an open source project, we are aiming to become THE platform for open source innovation. OpenTeams is a marketplace that connects open source stakeholders with organizations to facilitate funding for new development and maintenance.
Unlike KickStarter which only provides funding, we're enabling project leaders, contributors working on the funded project, funders themselves, and OpenPartners (middlemen 'general contractors) to collaborate and get the work done in the best way possible.
Thanks for the feedback! We really appreciate it.
Competition includes: * Bounty-based companies like Gitcoin, BountySource, and IssueHunt * Donation-based companies like Github Sponsors, Liberapay, and Patreon * Subscription-based companies like Tidelift
However, there is no direct competitor creating a marketplace that connects open source stakeholders with organizations to facilitate funding for new development and maintenance.
The website needs to be open source too.
You being able to revise the terms of service with no notice is a deal breaker.
The privacy policy might not be GDPR compliant due to changes being effective immediately instead of being consented to.
Why are you using Slack instead of something more open (like self-hosted Mattermost)?
Really appreciate it!
You need to be super transparent about what sort of cut you are taking from funders and how you are funding the OpenTeams project itself and what expenses that funding is paying for (salaries, development, servers etc).
The OpenPartner's are responsible for creating the product roadmap in liaison with the development team. This includes a clear budget for where the money is going, just as you described.