Show HN: The Year-Long Open-Source Sabbatical
indiegogo.com
indiegogo.com
For example, PDFy does not require an account or registration; there is a refreshingly honest ToS page if you care to read (I suggest you do) - https://pdf.yt/tos
I may not agree with all of his political ideas, but it is clear that the hacker spirit - writing code that is unencumbered by copyright and patents and other essentially restrictive BS, that simply accomplishes a certain task effectively, is something worth applauding and supporting.
There are few people in our 'industry' who are so ideologically motivated to write genuinely free software (many of his projects are under the WTFPL). Consider supporting him.
Sorry, but that's life. I leave work and am often too tired to hit the gym, much less come home and work on my side projects, but I find a way to do it (usually) and save money little by little. It's tough. For someone with his skillset he shouldn't have trouble finding a job elsewhere.
Who wouldn't like to have others pay their expenses while they take a year off to work on what they REALLY want to work on? I'd LOVE to quit my job and move to southeast asia to work on things like coding, writing, design, etc....but I'm not about to set up a kickstarter to get others to foot the bill.
It's very easy to shout "just get a job!", but the reality is that the moral repercussions of "just getting a job" are far bigger than asking people for voluntary(!) contributions if/when they appreciate what you're doing.
My income is dependent on whether people appreciate what I do, not on whether I tick abstract checkboxes on a list of technical requirements that may very well not serve anyone. I consider that the better option of the two.
There are millions of talented people (some of which I'm sure have noble intentions) out there who don't like their jobs, or at the end of the day are not producing a good result due to dissatisfaction with their jobs. If they want to take a year off, they work more, pick up side projects, cut expenses, and gradually save for it. Is that route really "morally" worse than asking others to pay for it?
I already did. That's what I'm doing now. That I'm not employed by somebody or running a commercial operation, doesn't mean it's somehow not 'work'. The parameters are just different.
> Just because you "want to help people" or have some moral objection to working for the man does not mean you're entitled to have others fund your dream lifestyle.
Who said anything about entitlement? This is a fundraiser that you can voluntarily contribute to. It doesn't even have any material perks for that reason.
I'm just constantly amazed at the lengths to which people go to try and paint accepting voluntary contributions as something immoral, while involuntary (that is, forced) payment is apparently perfectly fine.
> There are millions of talented people (some of which I'm sure have noble intentions) out there who don't like their jobs, or at the end of the day are not producing a good result due to dissatisfaction with their jobs. If they want to take a year off, they work more, pick up side projects, cut expenses, and gradually save for it. Is that route really "morally" worse than asking others to pay for it?
I consider forcing others to pay for something (by proxy) worse than asking others to pay for it, yes. I also find it odd that somebody else wouldn't.
The moral repercussions as you call them, do not disappear if you transfer the burden onto someone else.
I think you should figure out how to monetize your work and support yourself. Or, if that isn't possible, work some job (not necessarily in tech) to raise enough to feed yourself as you work.
But I hope your kickstarter is successful in any case. Seems to me you would use the money in a more useful way than most.
> The moral repercussions as you call them, do not disappear if you transfer the burden onto someone else.
They don't disappear, but they certainly do change. Money flows regardless; the question is to where it flows. If you look at things as a trade-off between energy and social benefit, in simplified form for the sake of illustration...
Scenario A: Dave has a well-paid job, and let's say he's hypothetically able and willing to fund me entirely. He spends $17k of his yearly $100k on keeping me afloat. There is now one person-year of energy going to a corporate purpose, and one person-year of energy (mine) going into a socially beneficial purpose.
Scenario B: Dave has the same well-paid job, but spends $17k on booze and other 'disposable income' things instead. He's not going to be paid any less. I have my own paid job, that pays $17k per year. There are now two person-years of energy going into a corporate purpose, and none into a socially beneficial purpose. Dave does not work any less hours, and his contribution to corporate purposes is not lessened, but mine has increased.
Consider it as me trying to 'pick up the scraps' of money that others don't really need (and that they are willing to put towards a socially beneficial purpose), so that I can spend my person-years on something that benefits everybody, not just a corporate purpose.
I would agree with your point if I were asking people to get a paid job for the purpose of supporting me (although you could then have a more interesting discussion about how the productivity differences change the equation), but as it stands I'm just piggybacking on corporate work that is already being done.
The terminology I used above may not be perfectly accurate, but I've tried to keep it simple for readability.
> I think you should figure out how to monetize your work and support yourself.
Non-voluntary "monetizing" just introduces attached strings and distorted priorities, no matter how ethically okay the particular form of income is. It would not allow me to do what I do now. That's why I'm doing this fundraiser - which, conceptually, is just a form of voluntary monetization.
> Or, if that isn't possible, work some job (not necessarily in tech) to raise enough to feed yourself as you work.
I've tried that (see also my passage on the campaign page about the open-source job), and it didn't work out well at all. I had raised these concerns to my employer prior to taking on the job, and was told that they believed they could make it work, but it ended up not working after all, more or less as predicted (and I'm not blaming my employer for that).
> But I hope your kickstarter is successful in any case. Seems to me you would use the money in a more useful way than most.
Thanks!
You just aren't making a lot of sense here. Your reasons for not wanting to work are because it creates "strings" and "distorted priorities".. What is distorted about earning(giving effort) and receiving a paycheck? Its only about the most common thing across every society on earth.
Dave gets to spend 17k on booze because Dave has a job. You want people to fund you because working "didn't work out" for you?
Am I the only one finding this a little hard to swallow?
As I said, I simplified it for the purpose of illustration. These kind of topics are incredibly complex - especially when you go outside of the conventional "get a job, buy a house" routine and thus lack a shared context/perspective - so describing everything accurately at once in a single comment is very hard, if not impossible. The best I can do is to keep things readable and mostly accurate, and elaborate on any points of confusion.
> There are plenty of non-profits that employ software developers
This is correct. However, they normally have a very narrow focus, which means there's not a lot of variation. That's an excellent way to become unproductive and unmotivated. I can simply do much more useful stuff when I'm not tied to a particular single agenda or purpose. I'm optimizing for productivity, not for social acceptance.
> and plenty of other businesses that provide useful/genuine services.
Sure, but providing useful services is not their goal. Making money is. The 'useful services' are just an (attempted) method of getting there. If making money weren't their goal, they wouldn't be a commercial business - they'd be a non-profit.
> There is nothing inherently wrong with a corporation or business.
There is, but that's quite a complex topic that goes beyond just the points mentioned here.
> If you are so against people working for corporations and the work that they produce, perhaps you should stop using computers and other electronics?
How is that a reasonable conclusion? Computers and other electronics are not something that can exclusively be produced in a commercial manner, that just happens to be how they are produced right now. I don't exactly have a choice there. How does that lead to me having to stop using that technology, seeing as there is nothing wrong with the technology in itself?
> You just aren't making a lot of sense here. Your reasons for not wanting to work are because it creates "strings" and "distorted priorities".. What is distorted about earning(giving effort) and receiving a paycheck?
The distortion is that your goal is now that paycheck, rather than doing useful things. If a conflict ever arises between the two, that leads you to having to pick between 'doing it right' or retaining your income, guess which one will win? These conflicts happen to people on a daily basis, they're just commonly waved away or ignored through various cognitive biases.
A tit-for-tat type of income inevitably leads to a shift in goals. Your goal is no longer the stated purpose of what you're doing, but rather following the wishes of whoever is bringing you that income. It creates a dependency, and not a healthy one.
> Its only about the most common thing across every society on earth.
As are corruption and dishonesty. That something is 'common' doesn't somehow make it morally justifiable or not distorted.
> You want people to fund you because working "didn't work out" for you?
No, and I've actually been quite clear about this. I want people to fund me if they appreciate what I do. That is the difference between accepting donations (which voluntary contributions effectively are), and panhandling. I'm essentially just giving people the choice to compensate me for my work, rather than forcing them to do so through a commercial business model.
I really don't understand the insistence you're putting on "just get a job". If the social cost vs. social benefits of my proposal are better than if I were to get a job, where is the problem?
How is that any different when you have a paid job? Other people will still be paying your salary by purchasing products/services/etc., there will just be an extra hop inbetween that takes a cut. That's just how the economy works.
> Sorry, but that's life. I leave work and am often too tired to hit the gym, much less come home and work on my side projects, but I find a way to do it (usually) and save money little by little.
No, that's your life. That you don't have what it takes to change it doesn't mean that someone else can't. Your whole message comes of as kind of bitter and whiny. By your own admission you'd love to do the same thing as the op, but because you wont get others to foot the bill no one else can?
Change what? My objections to panhandling on the internet so others can pay for me to take a year off? What makes this such a novel or morally enlightened idea? Is OP the first person in history to not like working?
I think I'll quit my job, move to China, and help feed and raise red pandas for a year. But I don't want to work or pay for any of the trip myself because working is evil, and I don't want to work for the man. So who wants to pay for it?
Your entire premise that I "just don't like working" is wrong. The concept of "work" does not require employment or a commercial agenda. Had you actually read properly, you would have understood that I actually work more than most people with a job - it's just not under an employment contract.
Go read my previous responses to you:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8138603
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8138249
Your remark about 'panhandling' is complete nonsense too; the whole point of panhandling is that it's unidirectional; the recipient does nothing useful in return, not even indirectly. That doesn't even remotely apply to this fundraiser.
I've run out of ways to say this nicely.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6307606 "Ask HN: Advice for discussing a substantial raise with my employer?"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7100749 "Ask HN: I may have made a mistake taking this job. What's next?"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7144934 "Ask HN: What's the worst you've ever screwed up at work?"
Geez, it sounds like you're dissatisfied with your career path and embittered by a lack of money and/or appreciation, and are taking your resentment out on someone who is willing to do work for essentially free, possibly out of a need to justify your own paycheck.
Kindly pull your head out of your ass, k?
I'm not taking any resentment out on anyone here, or justifying anything. I'm just pointing out that some people (myself included) would probably take issue with someone setting up a fundraiser so everyone can pay for them to take a year off and "pursue their passion". There's nothing stopping the OP from saving the money himself (even if it doesnt mean working) and just doing it.
I get that its completely voluntary to donate, so I'll just say I wont be donating and leave it at that, along with this discussion.
Anyway, I think Joepie is forgetting that he will have to pay 30% income tax over that $17.000, and possibly 21% VAT also (depends on whether this would be seen as payment for service I think, he should contact an accountant).
@Joepie: Consider contacting organizations such as NLnet (http://nlnet.nl/) for advice or support in these matters if you are in need of it. They support free software makers - the Unhosted (https://unhosted.org/) project comes to mind.