this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
919 points (84.3% liked)
Memes
45550 readers
1017 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Like who? Making an actual living I mean, not just collecting small donations to 'buy them a coffee' or whatever.
Not saying you're wrong, but some examples would be welcome.
See: RedHat devs and all the FOSS orgs that actually pay devs to work on their shit.
Google, Meta, and AMD have people on their to team they pay for development on FOSS projects because their operations rely upon them, so they have a vested interest in maintaining them.
So the best solution to make a living as a FOSS developer is to... Work for some giant tech monopoly who engages in sketchy consumer practices on a regular basis?
AFAIK Sync was created by a single person, so I doubt he's getting paid by anyone other than fans of the app and ad revenue. I'll look into RedHat though, I appreciate you taking the time to provide an actual example.
Not a problem. Also FOSS orgs pay their devs as well. Off the top of my head OS developers with a large userbase often pay their devs through donations to foundations that fund the project. Often donors are companies as well, but it gives a developer the option to get paid without working for a massive company.
(I suppose indirectly they do, but that's a whole different ball of wax)
He means provide an example of a single indie Dev doing it. You're being obtuse because you know that there's no one.
I don't understand. I reread back to the top comment and went down the chain. They made a rhetorical question about how devs of software being paid. Someone clarified the definition of Foss. Then there was a an inquiry about how someone could make a living with FOSS software and another commenter claiming millions do it (which a majority are these exact devs I pointed out).
I simply gave the list, that's all.
Blender, Wikipedia, Linux, RedHat and even the project you're using right now: Lemmy
There actually are a lot of people making a living out of making open source projects
Ill admit im not very familiar with blender, linux, or redhat, so ill look into those -- thank you.
My understanding is that nobody owns lemmy, rather people own the instances that make up lemmy. Which is definitely in the spirit of FOSS, but based on my understanding (happy to be proven wrong) I dont think its accurate to say the creators of Lemmy are making a living from it. You can donate to the admins of the instances you use, I suppose.
Likewise, isn't the main source of income for Wikipedia donations? They ask me for one every time I'm on the site.
So other than semantics, what's really the difference in making a donation to a service like Wikipedia, and paying for Sync? You can think of paying to remove ads as a donation if that helps, but the fact remains that lemmy is already available for free, and is much smaller than organizations like Wikipedia or Linux. Dude has got to eat.
Nope. The devs make a living out of it. They work on Lemmy full time. They are sponsored by NLnet and are paid for every feature they implement
Interesting, I didn't know that; thanks for the info.
Compleatly forgot to answer your other quesntion:
Yes the main income is donations. The difference is that you don't need to pay if you can't afford it and people who donate are generally paying more on average. The huge difference is that everyone has access to everything without paying.
Imagine what would happen if you would have to pay to use Wikipedia: nobody would use it. The content is made by users and if they would have made it a paid encyclopedia it wouldn't have any users.
Also, I gladly pay for subscriptions for services that actually cost money to run in the developer's side.
But that's not the case. It shows content from a free service. I get it that developers need to get paid, but if they don't have any recurring expenditure, it should be based on donations.
You don't need to pay for Sync if you can't afford it either, though. A free version exists, the only noteworthy difference is that it shows ads. To your point, there are technically a few gated features behind the Ultra subscription, but these are niche inclusions that 99% of people probably wouldn't use even if they were included for free. I think of them more as an added bonus for supporting the dev.