Open Source Sponsorship (Roast this idea)
Hi,
I'm working on a product that allows companies to sponsor open source projects. It's different from GitHub sponsors, Patreon, etc in that the developer:
- Puts a link in their readme
- Approves sponsors messages
- The sponsorship message shows up to users (sponsors pay based on CPM)
In short, it's an extremely curated ad network that still gives the open-source developer full control over who and what is displayed on their readme, but allows them to monetize their open-source project. Companies prefer this way because they can reach a developer audience while supporting the project directly.
Questions:
-
As a consumer of open source, would it bother you to see an unobtrusive "sponsored by" image in the README?
-
As an open-source developer, what objections do you have to using something like this?
I'd love to hear from you if you have an open-source project and you are interested in testing out this idea.
Hi,Andrew!
We are Opensource company!
We have over 600,000 members worldwide in the Boost Note community.
We make similar products out there!
We aim to add Bouty to open source projects and create a more sustainable world!
I think it's close to the idea you are thinking, so I shared it!
Let's liven up the open source together!
https://issuehunt.io/issues
Oh right on! Looks similar to GitCoin. Congrats on the traction
Yes that's product is alike Gitcoin!!
I think this is a very clever idea.
Just be sure to adhere to Github's ( or any other version control platform ) policies:
https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-acceptable-use-policies#8-advertising-on-github
It looks like everything you want to do seems Okay, but just make sure :)
I like the idea, it needs more validation. I think to make good money you want to be going for the super popular repos, the 1000 star or higher ones, and getting decent advertisers, like your "Stripes", etc. You would need to validate that these people on both sides want to participate, and if they have any hesitations. I feel this is a relationship building business more than a tech thing.
I think you are looking at the direction where the light is not where the problem is...
And the problem is how to make people pay, even for some perks.
What if you invent a platform where open source devs would pay $5 and make $500 back?
I sense sarcasm here but I think you just defined a Ponzi scheme
Your sense is wrong... I just wanted to point you at the real problem. It doesn't really matter how exactly they will pay, the problem is how to make them to pay.
Falling into your second category. I wouldn't want sponsors injecting anything into my README without approval. I also wouldn't want to have any part in approving / denying said messages. Thus, I wouldn't want to use your service in it's stated form.
As both a user of open source, and contributor, assuming these messages are submitted in the form of pull / merge requests, I'd be pretty unhappy with said messages showing up in the commit history. If nothing else, they'd be fairly persistent outside of squashing old commits to get rid of the messages (specifically thinking in terms of people canceling their sponsorship once they got their reward).
didn't want to get too in the weeds in the post but the way I'm thinking about it:
You (maintainers) still maintain control over what is shown, who shows it, how it's shown etc.
There wouldn't be any PRs to manage. The link in the README is dynamic. It will update based on your approvals so you only embed it and commit it once.
Perhaps sponsorship is making you think about it in a particular way. Perhaps ad network that is extremely curated and approved by you is a better mental framework.
if the above were true would it still be a no for you?
Lost me on how you'd have anything dynamic in the README outside of a dynamic image (per sponsor), that is proxied through a static link.... which would still need to be injected to the README at some point (assuming one link per sponsor).
I like the idea less when you say "ads". Sponsoring development / believing in a project has a completely different context than buying billboards on a project to capitalize on it's success.
that's it. one proxied image (may have one or a few sponsors).
I only mention ads to help solidify the idea.
The reality is that marketing departments have budget and if the money ends up in the maintainer's hands while the company gets a benefit, I think it's a mutually beneficial scenario.
Of course, there are going to be a ton of people that hate this. I'm okay with that.
I've talked to a few maintainers that do like it and so far (after a little trust has been built) they see that this isn't some injection of a shit 3rd party ad server. They still have control over who and what is shown (including removing the embed whenever they want).