Hacker News Reader

Comment by dom96 | Hacker News Reader

If it's Apache 2.0 how are you getting royalty payments from it?

>> If it's Apache 2.0 how are you getting royalty payments from it?

It sounds like acknowledging the sponsors is "the right thing", good Karma, or simply advertising for them. Not everyone wants to just rip off open source and not give back, they're willing to share the wealth if you make it easy and let people know they're doing it?

I need to set up github sponsors myself. We get the occasional request "how can I contribute money to you guys" and we always say stuff like "just spread the word". I keep telling myself I don't want to feel obligated by money, but I also know that I'd love to make enough to work on open source full time.

You’re not obligated by money when the money is coming from donations. That’s what donations mean. The people giving them to you are not your customers.

Also I can recommend OpenCollective; I’m sure there are other similar solutions as well. It’s nice to be able to “expense” stuff and I’m sure donors appreciate transparency.

I think it's really important to make it clear that the contribution is for what is currently there. I get often ask "Will $$$ make you work on that issues" and I always answer no.

What will help fix that issue is my wife going shopping with the kids long enough for me to figure what is wrong. ;)

So the obvious answer is to take the $$$, give it to your wife, and ask her to take the kids shopping with her :-)

Creative workarounds like this is why I love hacker news. :)

People are nice? But most likely they want a good relationship with me in case they get problems. Also they benefits from being able to tell their customer they support the project.

Ahh, I see. So you are receiving donations. Royalties to me mean payments that are required not voluntary.

I consider donation what random user give me on patreon/gh sponsor/itch.io

I talked with the makers or manufacturer and we reached an agreement. So to me (and them) it's royalties.

What you consider and your manufacturer considers doesn't matter. The definition of royalties is what matters, it doesn't fit in this case as far as I can see. They aren't paying you money so they can use your software, they are donating money because they are nice, they could stop paying at any time and continue to use your software.

Ad.

They get ad placement for the money paid ie a commercial transaction not donation.

Pretty sure the license means you do not have to pay royalties, not that you are disallowed from paying royalties

Royalties are typically a contractual payment, though. Calling a voluntary payment a royalty is kind of an odd use of the word, if not plainly incorrect.

You're right, these are donations. But they are donations that are determined based on the number of units sold. I believe that's why the parent is using the term royalty.

It's not a contract, as the term "royalty" implies, but it is a royalty in the sense that it's determined per unit sold.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com