-
korrents.com
Company sponsorships, not individual ones, are where open source funding has to come from.On changing their mind
I’ve seen recurring comments to the effect of “This is great, but individuals aren’t where the money’s at, it’s companies”, which is a position I’ve also previously taken.
What public figures publish and believe, in their own words.
About this feed
Highlights: posts that did unusually well for the person who wrote them, everything they published at length, each release and new project, and every belief — at most two a day from anyone. Day by day, newest day first; within a day, the people with the most beliefs on this site come first. Nothing else orders it. Show everything instead.
The quoted blocks are what people actually said; a beneath one is the belief those words support, in korrents' wording. Nobody here wrote their own page.
Top people are the people in this feed with the most beliefs on this site, then the most here. Choose an area and the row leads with the people whose beliefs are about it; tap a face for their feed.
Top people in open source
Showing Profile →
Hiding
Hiding
24 May 2019
-
Their words
With companies, open source developers are selling a product. With individuals, they’re selling themselves.
14 March 2019
From one piece Making money with licenses 2 beliefs, in the piece's order there
-
korrents.com
The thing open source can actually sell is not the code but access to its maintainers’ attention and expertise.Their words
While everyone is focused on putting up tollbooths, opportunities to “price” maintainer attention, and access to maintainers, remain undervalued.
-
korrents.com
Free riding is not open source’s problem: the users who only download the code impose no cost on anyone.Their words
Most users don’t actually impose costs back to maintainers: they download the code and never interact with the project.
22 August 2018
From one piece The Commons Clause will destroy open source 3 beliefs, in the piece's order there
-
Their words
A $250/mo recurring donation to would be a drop in the bucket of most businesses, but a major boon to any open source project, with which the business will almost certainly see tangible value-add as a result.
-
korrents.com
Maintainers of widely used open source software are not adequately funded, and that is a real and unsolved problem.Their words
What should we do about open source maintainers not getting the funding they need? It’s a very real problem, and one Kevin has explicitly asked us to talk about before we criticise his solution to it.
-
Their words
But the Commons Clause doesn’t present a solution for supporting open source software. It presents a framework for turning open source software into proprietary software.
2 July 2018
-
Their words
The right to fork is still critical as an implied threat to keep the system in check. But major political forks aren’t as common, and certainly not as top-of-mind, anymore.
13 June 2018
-
Their words
Open source projects on GitHub represent billions of dollars in value creation, but none of that is captured on GitHub.
27 November 2012
-
Mixed onrcmnd.app
UbuntuTheir words
I work under Ubuntu for the most of time with open source software packages. I dislike the default Unity interface like others.
1 February 2012
-
Lovedrcmnd.app
partychatTheir words
One of my favorite killer apps is partychat. It is an open source Jabber-based persistent chat room. It works with Google Talk and is VERY simple.
Nothing matches.
What is a korrent?
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said. The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter, especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked article and a belief on korrents.com are left in their original language.