I love Vimium too! (using on chrome) Took me a while to learn all the shortcuts (thanks Anki!), but that was worth it. Wish it was more integrated to the browser though (having to wait for a page to finish loading before I can use a shortcut is sometimes annoying).
You're not mentioning my favorite Vimium command! m<key> to save a mark, and `<key> to load it. lowercase chars marks are in-page marks, and uppercase chars are global marks (like bookmarks).
An organization collecting funds for open source should itself be open source and not earn margin for anything other than upkeep and paying engineers' salaries.
I kind of feel like Patreon and Kickstarter are in the same vein: rent seeking marketplaces that would be better if they were replaced with entirely open source alternatives that belonged to their respective communities. Patreon should be funded via patreon.
If Wikipedia were started today, I worry that it would have ads or be for-profit.
We are big fans of Liberapay. They are a great solution working towards making open source sustainable. Our model is very different though.
Instead of a recurring donation based system, we are creating a marketplace that connects open source software consuming companies to open source consulting and development companies who are proposing fundable roadmaps for new features and maintenance of critical open source software. The KickStarter idea comes from the fact that any person or company can fund the project so that in the future, they can use the software.
The deep social reputation database generated by the OpenTeams’ social reputation network will provide the foundation for proposers to demonstrate their ability to deliver on a fundable project's goals and grant the prospective funders the ability to validate the composition of the team proposed.
As someone working on a crowdfunding platform that I would like to be able to release the source code as an open consumer union implementation, I have concerns about enabling unmoderated crowdfunding.
The power of a collective wallet is not something to be taken lightly. Whether it's environmental destruction or divisive politics, I have yet to decide that setting something like this free is for the best interest.
I would like to see an open source license like the GPL that has enforceable, well-defined provisions for environmental protection and human rights.
It seems like to go all the way, a smart contract would need to be used to ensure the transparency that a standard webserver-based infrastructure cannot provide. But credit cards are the standard for online payments so this would put a project in a further category from the start.
I cannot agree with you more. We are working on making open source software sustainable so that people view open source software as a real career. People should be paid to work on the projects that they love and care so much about! We have had many discussions around becoming open source in the beginning. However, in order to ensure that we achieve the aforementioned mission, we believe that is it best to start off as a proprietary company for a number of different reasons. In the future, we will be looking to become open source. Thank you for your feedback!
The discussion about being open source has been extensively debated. In order to change the economics of open source, we believe you need to do things differently. At the moment we are not open source because we need to get the project off the ground. We believe that in order to grow to a suitable level where we can talk about becoming open source, we need to have the control and swiftness of a proprietary startup to be able to first establish a marketplace that proves this new business model. Please note that we are all for becoming open source in the future.
Assuming OpenTeams is built on Django/Flask (based on the large number of Python projects), it would also be cool just to submit code/doc improvements or support back to those projects.
Hi there, I'm part of OpenTeams. Members of our team are contributors and maintainers of several projects within the scientific python community. Our goal is not just to contribute funding, but to also contribute time/code. As we grow, we'll do our best to be part of many more projects.
This crosses into personal attack, which is not acceptable on HN, and particularly breaks the Show HN guidelines. We want people to be able to share their work here without being harangued and disincentivized.
I'm sure you can express your substantive points thoughtfully, so please do that in the future. And if you wouldn't mind reviewing the Show HN rules and the site rules, we'd be grateful:
It's literally flicking a switch on your repository.
That's technically true if you believe "open source" is just about having the right text file in a repo, but there's much more to it if you want to consider the ethics, responsibilities, and legal ramifications of how you choose to license your project.
There is absolutely nothing stopping someone creating an open source project and exploiting a market opportunity at the same time. The perception that "open source === done for altruistic reasons" is one of the most common misconceptions about OSS, and really should be changed.
Thank you for your feedback. I empathise with your concern, but the only thing we are interested in is supporting OSS. Travis has been in the industry for over 20 years and his life is open source software. This is where his interests lie.
The sole purpose of this company is to bring together organizations using open source software with creators and maintainers of the software to facilitate and grow funding opportunities. This is needed so that open source can become sustainable. In order to achieve this mission, revenue is needed to make sure that we are actually capable of supporting OSS.
One of our main goals at OpenTeams is to channel more funding and resources into community-driven projects, to support transparency in their governance, and keep the communities around them healthy and accelerate their development. We do this in a way that keeps the community in charge of its destiny.
I promise this is a genuine question. Can someone explain the background here that explains why discussions about open-source to turn explosive?
Like, the point here is that if this venture means to support open-source then it should open-source its own stuff (which means what here? Its website, I guess)?
I mean, I guess that makes sense to me? But why so much passion about this? LOL, I really don't get it. I really think I'm missing some basic background. In my mind I'm thinking "hmm, that's a good point. Kind of inconsistent..." but I never make the leap to "you clearly are NOT interested in supporting open-source".
Can someone explain it to me? I promise if any of this sounds flippant, it's unintentional. I really think there's some OSS history I'm unaware of that makes me not understand these exchanges.
I doubt there is a single correct answer to your question. That said, two things come to mind...
First, commercial software used to be very anti open source. See [1]. As a result, there can be distrust & skepticism when commercial companies get involved in open source.
Second, there are a range of “open source” licenses reflecting a broad spectrum of values and beliefs about how much code should be shared and with what restrictions/obligations. So, people enter into the discussion from a variety of view points. Some people only use GPL or AGPL software and won’t participate in online forums unless the forum software is released under those licenses. People in that group might feel excluded from OpenTeams in the same way someone who is a strict vegan might feel excluded at a vegetarian restaurant.
Having read about the beginnings of a lot of open source projects it is common for an initial period of “closed” small team development.
Episode 32 of the Django Chat podcast touches on this topic at 34 minutes in. DHH talks about the benefits of a small group of people working fast to shape a feature before releasing it to the community.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/django-chat/id14515364...
This is exactly the approach we are taking to launch OpenTeams. By having a small "closed" group focus on launching key features, we believe that our new business model will become the default approach to helping open source projects become sustainable.
> However, I have to admit, the search results of duckduckgo are by far inferior to what Google used to give.
I've switched to DuckDuckGo since I read its CEO's book "Super Thinking", and I'm not feeling that it's inferior. Sure, it doesn't have rich cards and other goodies, but I've come to realize that these are nice-to-have, but not essential.
On the other hand, reducing the confirmation bias by getting out of the filter bubble is, I believe, essential.
Just read the news, that's impressive. Wondering what service they'll become.
Reading NHK news, I also understand that on the 18th, Yahoo and Line decided to finance a new HR company that'll manage both 50 million yahoo users and 82 million Line users from October 2020.
I would have followed the project if it was more active, but no commits in 21 days for master branch, 28 days for develop branch and a diff of 246 commits between the 2 branches leaves me perplexed.
Sorry if I'm starting an off-topic discussion here, but I can't read the article due to Medium's reading quota.
https://i.imgur.com/uWY1kaw.png
I don't think I have spent that much time on their site, didn't try to. Maybe the fact that many of HackerNews' link go to medium and I started following HN actively recently?
Have people here just accepted to pay Medium 5$/month?
