Patreon may change the dynamics of Open Source and Free Software in unexpected ways.
When you're working unpaid on a hobby, you can easily justify telling demanding users to "Pull request or GTFO."
But if you're earning a living wage... don't you have more of an obligation to listen to your "clients"?
Does it matter if the user complaining has paid? What if some other user paid, expecting you to have more time for "boring user request" in general?
@HerraBRE Don't companies like Red Hat prioritize paying customers in a certain way?
@Divan I am sure they do! And I think they are also less likely to resort to "PR or GTFO" in their projects than than many other groups.
But that's just my gut feeling, I could be wrong.
@HerraBRE patreons could have a preferential access to the project maintainer, sounds right. Having something like patreon integrated in github would introduce some interesting opportunities.
As a side note, I would have never told that the people of the internet were ready for something like patreon, happy to have been wrong.
@uraimo I would rather support a project if I know that my support means *other people* will get better support too as a result. Maybe that's just me...
@HerraBRE sure, but still, if I was on the receiving end of the transaction I would like to give something special to those who contributed.
But yes, money=more time for the project and everyone gains something from that.
@HerraBRE I'd say for bugs/support: absolutely. If you get paid for a project then having people unable to use it is unacceptable (certainly paying users). For feature requests, not so much (unless payment was to implement a specific thing). Paying doesn't mean they get to determine the direction of the project.
@HerraBRE That's valuable input. On the same page: How do we determine what's "enough" money (see #StarCitizen for example).
But you're right: If you give someone money for what they do, it's no longer a hobby. Maybe #Linux would've gone in a whole different direction if our benevolent dictator Linus would've had the chance of getting paid for developing it.
@HerraBRE Seems to me the developer should post a roadmap as well as a set of principles that sets expectations for how the software will evolve.
The dev should also state clearly what special access (if any) contributors can expect.
Basically dev should be upfront and set expectations that they are realistically able and intend to fulfill.
@HerraBRE There's a good chance that we're slowly switching to a model where supporters have to pay to get the open source developer's time and the rest have to just do pull requests. I think it's less about the business model and more about using the willingness to pay to tell the difference between users who actually rely on the software and loud randos that like to do drive-by shout at OSS projects (which exist in too many numbers & can be persistent). #my2cents
@HerraBRE Another way to look at it is this: working full-time on a commercial non-OSS project very rarely translates into an obligation to support non-paying users of that software. It almost always means prioritising paying users and letting the rest hang.
@HerraBRE even if there is no moral obligation, you still may feel a need to listen to the paying users. After all, what if they threaten to pull their monthly funding?
Same for the follow-up question: It might be, that those who pay more, get listened to more.
There are probably several stacks of game theory lectures on this somewhere: Is it worth to slightly inconvenience 500 1$-Users in order to please the one 500$-User. The risk that they all go is slimmer than that for the 1.
@HerraBRE that already is happening all the time. it is called "paid by the hour" and is what us freelancers do - working with Open Source SW, configuring, adapting and enhancing it.
But I normally try to do it the other way around: Create a plugin or extension based upon custom work, so the need for "acting" based on the client payment does not affect the matter.
@ginsterbusch I'd argue that Patreon is very different from being paid by the hour.
@HerraBRE The dilemma stays the same though. Take a look how the author of #acf (https://www.advancedcustomfields.com/) is handling this - you either pay per site, or once for all .. but it is a lifetime license EACH time (including updates). If you want support, you have to join the support forum on his site, and post there. No priority given to buyers of the pro version (see https://www.advancedcustomfields.com/resources/can-access-support/).
@ginsterbusch I really don't care how non-free, non-OSS software is funded. Not my scene.
I am interested in the dynamics of communities where the work is given away and openly shared, but authors are figuring out how to make a living without resorting to closed licenses.
@HerraBRE Neither is it mine ;)
The aforementioned example is a plugin for WordPress. Which is licensed under GPL v2 or later. Anything like a plugin, theme or add-on therefore is a derivate and thus has to abide to the same licensing terms. What you are paying for here is the service, the continued development of the software, and so on.
@HerraBRE On a side note: This is also a big issue for people to overcome, who are used to see a "pro" version as closed source (= their code, their rules); not getting (over) the fact that when releasing extensions for an OSS software they are indeed bound by its licensing terms (and not their own).
@HerraBRE Yes, I know I'm kinda off-topic, but the dynamics in this very hazy defined environment are very similar, if not identical, to those of beneficiary users (missing a proper term here) of Patreon and other subscriptions-support models / platforms.
@ginsterbusch Perhaps! I'll think about it, thanks for the input.
@HerraBRE Personally I think the motivation for using a subscription-based payment aka "getting something back for all your effort" is in both .. types? .. of cases the same. You are going to have a more or less regular income, even if its just a few bucks. But then, you cna focus better on what you like to do, instead of scrabble for every coin.
@HerraBRE I know its a subscription model, but it turns out the same as payment per year (your piece of SW and the option for future downloads till day x) or another specific amount of time.
@HerraBRE I don't think you have an obligation (unless the Patreon rewards say so). It gets interesting once a feature request, that you don't want to implement(out of scope, not a priority,...), reaches a critical mass of support among your patrons. What do you do? Risk your living wage or act against the best interest of the project?
@HerraBRE
I think if your Patreon is giving you the equivalent of a full time wage then you should treat the project as your full time job, including support requests.
If you can get it to pay enough you can pay someone to do support requests if you're not a people person.