Hacker News Reader

Let me get this straight: so a prolific, proven open source contributor makes some money, and the community gets a problem fixed. This is a bad thing? Who loses here?

What if Yehuda's company gave him 25% of his time to work on open source - would that be different? He'd get that same $25k (or whatever), and the software would get built (and open sourced). Only difference I can see is the source of the money, so are you against the idea of companies letting their devs work on open source?

There's this attitude in the open source world that somehow developers getting directly paid for open source is evil. This is -- excuse me -- fucking bullshit. I can't think of anything better than the idea of developers getting paid to write open source software. We need to grow the hell up and understand that paying developers to write open sourced software is a good thing -- open source devs get money, and the community gets software. Again, who loses?

I don't use Rails, and I probably never will, yet I kicked in some money to help see this through. I can think of about a million worse ways I could have spent that cash.

Thank you. That is really nice :D

The problem here is the ego, you have to notice how Yehuda put an accent on how important his contributions to rails 3 were. I'm not arguing they're not, but as Plato put it, when you think you reached the absolute wisdom you couldnt be further from it

Oh, I see. So the problem isn't that Yehuda's asking for money, but that he had the temerity to state his qualifications.

Again, we gotta grow up. Yehuda's contributions to Rails 3 were important. What's wrong with taking credit for that? I'm often critical of the Rails community for an excess of ego, but this is not one of those cases.

It seems pretty clear that the idea of an open source developer asking for money seems vaguely filthy to a bunch of people. I think this is unhealthy and poisonous. It condemns open source to be the provence of academics, the unemployed, those able to snatch free time away from their friends and familier, or those working at the largess of their corporate employers. That's a shitty limit on the scope of free software.

I read the accent as being on his track record of delivering on open source software efforts. In other words, he's demonstrating the soundness of investing your money toward his goal. Regardless, count me in.

Part of using Kickstarter (and IndieGoGo, and the others) is establishing that you're qualified to do what you say you'll do with the crowd's money. He did exactly what he was supposed to do.

I, for once, don't see a problem with getting paid doing open-source software.

With kickstarter I get an assumption that if for some reason he won't raise enough money - he won't work on the project. That, in my opinion, is wrong. It shouldn't matter if one raises money or not, as long as you like what you're doing. Otherwise why bother in the first place?

Opportunity cost. If the world can't come up with $25k to fund this project, then it must not actually have enough of a market to be worth Yehuda's time. He can go find something else to do for $25k worth of his time that will likely benefit someone more than this would have.

It's not like we're investing $25k of angel funds to have him build something that he is then going to sell for $500k without sharing the profits. We're simply paying the living expenses of someone who wants to solve a perceived need for the development community.

This might just be me, but here's my point of view: I like writing software. It's pretty enjoyable. But you know what's more enjoyable? Eating. Having a roof over my head. Being able to pay for my wedding without selling any major organs. If the time I spend writing software detracts from those other things, I'm sorry, but the software either has to go or has to pay for itself. If you want to be absurdly altruistic, you are free to do as you will, but I don't think it's reasonable to demand it from Yehuda, especially as he's already given so much.

There's no problem with open source contributors making money from their work. The problem is, there is a chance that this subtle change in perspective will evolve into an unhealthy culture.

Especially since this is coming from Yehuda Katz. I've seen several people using things like Gun.io to fund patches and small additions to open source libraries, but it always seems to come from people you never see in the community - outsourcers, or people who just aren't that into coding but still code. But once a leader in the community does this... It's up in the air what this will do long term.

Here's one possible outcome. It becomes "cool" to crowd fund open source projects, so a few of the up-and-coming coders with new open source projects start doing this too. In a year or two, a big chunk of the top coders are charging to do open source work. It's a badge of worthiness... Coderwall.com get's it's "$25k+ achievement" badge.

Then one of two things can happen. The unlikely thing is, it evens out, there's a happy balance - some people charge, some people don't. Much more likely is people either start charging ridiculous amounts, the quality of free open source projects drastically decreases, or people start keeping their projects to themselves. This eventually leads to rebellion, and the true ones left start ANOTHER Free Software Foundation that gets back to the roots.

This kind of stuff happens, out of seemingly innocent and well-intentioned moves.

Like everyone's said, companies like 37signals and all the companies we work at fund open source projects, so one way or another we're getting some sort of payment. It's totally cool to make money off your open source work like this, nobody really sees it even though we all know. It's this indirectness that keeps the community healthy. It creates a feeling of open-ness. A culture. Asking for money directly like this doesn't make things feel open anymore, and like everything it will spiral.

I agree...I don't use Rails for production work (yet); however, I dig what is going on here and I've also donated. The Rails community definitely takes care of business and seems to have a much more entrepreneurial spirit than most (if not all) other dev communities that I've witnessed. I'll have some of that please!

What this is is Yehuda Katz, who has built a reputation with contributions to open source products over many years, realizing that his market value is better than "kudos" on some website.

The alternative to stuff like this is Yehuda Katz writing code for some startup that you will never see. Here's Katz finding a way to make a business out of writing open source...

... and this is a bad thing? What's wrong with you?

Lots of companies hire people to work on open source projects. It is how most of it gets written. He could probably get a job where working on this is part of it in a heartbeat.

(not that I disagree with this project or method, I think he should do the same as what Google Appengine does with its installer - it is seriously awesome)

He did, actually. Much of the work he did on Merb and Rails 3 was generously funded by Engine Yard.

Though I'm quite thankful Engine Yard chose to fund his work, I'd categorize doing so as an investment than a generous act. Nothing wrong with either, of course.

I would certainly agree (especially his work on Merb, since they began offering commercial Merb support and such while he was doing that). The "generously" was partially true, partially facetious. :)

You seem to forget that he has almost always be paid for his contribution: * Merb / Rails - EngineYard * Sproutcore / Ember - Strobe (and via contract work)

I myself struggle with the concept of asking $25k to build what he wants to build. But at the end of the day what I think doesn't matter what I think or how many people disagree. If enough people agree with him and support him, then the project will happen. If you don't like the idea, just don't give your money. If you are worried this attitude becomes a trend then be active and release your stuff differently.

"I myself struggle with the concept of asking $25k to build what he wants to build."

Are you of the opinion that people should only be paid to do things that they don't want to do?

If Yehuda Katz' market value is too high to build this kind of thing without sponsorship, then maybe someone else can build it gratis and he can save his time and energy for paying work.

Nobody's stopping them. Why is Yehuda Katz working for people at large somehow better than him working for giant faceless companies?

A lot of programmers have hangups about money. Consider whether you do as well, and if so whether this is something you've purposefully chosen because you really like what it does for your life or whether it is just accidental. If it is accidental, you may want to consider stopping.

a) $25k is not a lot of money for very well-known programmers. There are fairly straightforward methods to get that much in a month (a salaried job), a week (contracting+), or a day (training event, $500 a head).

+ Stipulate that in addition to Rails he has at least one talent which makes money and this is not unreasonable at all.

b) There was no time at which OSS was not predominantly the work product of the global rich employed at corporations. This is observably true for Rails, since the list of contributors since DHH extracted it is both public and short. The Rails core team works on Rails like it is their job because...

c) ... Rails was designed to, and succeeds at, making companies great piles of money by increasing the efficiency at which they can churn out CRUD apps. Please note that is in no way a criticism. Apps running on Rails go from BCC (five figures a year) to Basecamp (eight figures a year and will probably hit nine eventually unless they already did).

d) OSS developers making money by it - I.e. The traditional accepted way to write it - does not make you personally worse off, because it increases software available to you. You may perceive that people will listen to you less because monied interests will drown out your voice. This is irrational: since the $100 you think is a lot of money only buys maybe 30 minutes of programmer time anyhow, the opinions that mattered in OSS were already those of companies which coul actually pay salaries, and someone freer with their last $100 than you are will only have epsilon more impact on "the community" than you when compared to IBM (a consulting company which staffed most Linux development) or Google (an advertising company which directly or indirectly pays the salaries of the majority of programmers working on either of the two big OSS browsers.) apache's Kickstarter was IBM realizing that they'd happily pay a billion dollars to have IIS not become the dominant server platform so they proceeded to do so.

a) $25k is not a lot of money for very well-known programmers.

What if Linus said, "I have this great idea for a version control system, but I need the community to raise $100k to make it happen"? Of course he would never do that. The reason for making git was to give the kernel project what it needed for a version control system. Linus' time is at least an order of magnitude more valuable than Yahuda Katz' time. Just as git arguably makes the kernel project more successful, rails.app ought to make Rails more popular. Wide deployment of Linux in turn makes Linux developers' skills more valuable, just as wider deployment of Rails enriches Ruby developers.

c) ... Rails was designed to, and succeeds at, making companies great piles of money

d) OSS developers making money by it

That can be said for just about any popular open source project used in the business world.

> Of course he would never do that.

Why? Maybe he was paid by the linux foundation during that time? Other sources of income? The gratuit "of course" is not clear to me.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you try to say, but: " rails.app ought to make Rails more popular [...] wider deployment of Rails enriches Ruby developers". Are you saying that Yehuda should not make money from his efforts, but the Ruby developers in turn can use the results naturally for their gain?

Why? Maybe he was paid by the linux foundation during that time? Other sources of income? The gratuit "of course" is not clear to me.

And Rails is sponsored by 37Signals. You'd be hard pressed to find very many large open source projects without commercial backing.

Are you saying that Yehuda should not make money from his efforts, but the Ruby developers in turn can use the results naturally for their gain?

That is generally how things work. Companies specializing in open source technologies have a business interest in their specialty software(s) becoming more popular. A core Rails developer will command the highest speaking and consulting fees.

I think the reservation many people have about all of this is that it feels backwards. Asking for sponsors is one thing, but making the open source project pay-to-play flies in the face of the spirit of FLOSS.

> but making the open source project pay-to-play flies in the face of the spirit of FLOSS

Ah, maybe I just do not agree with that spirit. The SBCL compiler fared well with Nikodemus Siivola's crowdfunding: http://random-state.net/log/3523852985.html

At the same time I do not get how this is a problem for people to accept wrt software, while it is the common suggestion to artists in copyright questions on HN: go crowdfunding!

What is "FLOSS"? Free/Open Source software? The fact that you can't even refer to it without an acronym that conflates two opposed philosophies suggests that maybe the "spirit of FLOSS" is less well-defined than you think it is.

In any event, it is better than Katz should work directly for people who are going to use his software than that he work for some giant company that incidentally finds it valuable to task him with something useful.

Free and open source are not opposing philosophies. Software cannot realistically be considered "free" without being open source.

No. You should consult Google, perhaps with a query including "vs".

... But software that is open source is not nessicarily free. Open source is a development model, free software is a religious movement

Just chiming in to say that Yehuda Katz has given away so many work hours to Ruby, Rails and JavaScript projects - Thor being one of my favorites. If he decides to raise $25K to work on some open source project, he's more than earned the right to do so.

Another point worth making is this: let the market decide. If the market will bear $25K (one-time payment) for a Rails.app, then so be it. Your opinion doesn't matter, frankly neither does mine.

I don't really see this affecting open source projects either. You've always been able to make money from free (as in beer) open source projects (directly or indirectly), even for projects that are not widely used.

Patronage is a model that has existed as long as artists. You wouldn't be able to go see Michaelangelo's work without this model. But people have, and do, paint for free, too.

I don't see why it's a bad thing that in modern times, skilled and famous artists continue to do work for hire. The fact that Yehuda is asking for crowd funding instead of funding from an individual is just in the details.

This is something that would be personally valuable for me. He could just as easily build this and sell it on the App Store; I'd buy it too. Instead I'll donate so you can get it for free.

Who says OSS has to be all about altruism and self-sacrifice?

Btw.. http://railsinstaller.org/ was funded by EngineYard... I'm not sure I see the difference?

railsinstaller is windows only.

I meant "not sure I understand why people didn't get their knickers in a twist with railsinstaller" :)

I fail to understand why some programmers don't like to see other programmers get paid directly for their efforts.

If open source work is not paid for directly, it is paid for by corporations. Even when people do work in their 'spare time', it is being subsidized by the corporate job that puts food on their table.

Arguing against directly funded open-source is tantamount to arguing that developers should only be able to make a living working for a corporation.

There's nothing wrong with choosing to work for corporations, but what's wrong with having alternative economic mechanisms as well?

Hmmm ... Romanticism at work?

As far as I can remember open source always has been a sponsored or subsidized undertaking as far as it concerns meaningful or central projects.

Without it, the linux kernel would be only teaching material on Finnish universities, MySQL would not exist, Erlang would be a Danish mathematician and a waiting cue formula. The basis for the ASF is the web server which was developed at the NCSA. So you're on the right track with the "Can you imagine..." question.

Whats wrong with someone who want to make a meaningful addition to OS and asks money to be able to give full attention to the project? Isn't that more realistic than to hope for loosely coordinated efforts of spare time developers?

[note: I use this term not to criticize the persons in question but to point at the focus of the contribution. Also scratching-own-itch projects can easily err on the wrong side of the pareto ratio]

No, the amount is a donation. Are you saying that people who donate to apache foundation dont have influence? you are living under a rock if your think that in open source money plays no part.

Sure you can fork an open source project and request a pull, but if the core team disagrees with it then its all the same as the above.

Kickstarter is simply a marketing technique to raise the funds from an eventual corporate sponsor I bet.

> We're charging a cover at the door now?

It's like charging a cover at the door to help write the songs for the band you want to hear.

There's a lot of "you don't want someone to get paid for their work" replies to this comment. But the OP has a really good point:

> [$100 gets you] access to the internal list for the project, where I'll be soliciting feedback about how to nail this. Great open source projects rarely come from the ideas of just one person, and your input will guarantee that Rails 4 is as great for beginners as it is for experienced developers.

That is a non-starter.

This is also not a $25,000 project.

I admire and am thankful for Yahuda's contributions and I'd have no problem funding a "Yahuda should get paid" Kickstarter but this particular project is lame.

But isn't this "unused" money in the system that folks are happy to give away for increasing the probability that something they need gets done?

This is such an intriguing comment. I thought you were standing on reasonably logical ground (even if I disagree) until this part:

< I see it [and contribute to it] for large-scale art projects

...What in the world is the difference?

If anything it makes more sense to fund work that is actually useful than work that is simply beautiful or interesting.

well said. when i saw the link i was confused why this would be on kickstarter...just feels odd to have software development on KS, unless there is some extenuating circumstances..

This right here is why you generally want to reconsider building products for the kinds of technical people that haunt message boards.