
Code Sponsor is shutting down on December 8 - Sachse
http://mailchi.mp/f9b57b5ea377/code-sponsor-is-shutting-down-on-december-8
======
jlgaddis
> _... we have raised over $10,000 towards open source sustainability._

In October, they brought in $7,437.20 from sponsors. They paid out $3,413.20
to open source developers.

40% was to be paid out to developers. I realize there are some "administrative
costs" and it takes a while to ramp things up but that seemed like way too
little being paid out.

On the other hand, that's $3,413.20 that otherwise might not have went into
the pockets of developers so I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about Code
Sponsor.

~~~
git-pull
This isn't directed at the commenter, but the concept above: Can we all come
to an agreement that a person running an endeavor be permitted to feed, cloth,
and accomodate themselves reasonably?

Specifically, this crab mentality of dashing hopes of someone ending up right
side up on a side project or even a nonprofit. Why pick on the little guys who
are just trying to get by, especially if they have a noble intention of
funding open source projects.

This is something that we really need, and I feel larger organizations that
fund open source - not naming names - aren't transparent or egalitarian enough
with who and how they fund. So many people do open source and don't see a
penny from it. In 2017, if you want to receive any funding for an open source
project, you have to be in a certain social circle, very popular, or very
fortunate.

There are organizations that horde millions in cash reserves and give six
figures to people just for sitting on a board. Then, there are people just
trying to bootstrap themselves on a shoestring budget to buy groceries and pay
rent to their roommate. It is my sincere hope we are more generous to people
just trying to scrape by and not trying to unduly hound them and guilt trip
them into not being able to pay their basic living expenses.

$3,413.20 over a period of four months? Thankfully he also had a day job,
because we also don't know if he had other developers, or what were his true
needs were to be able to sustain his project.

~~~
TAForObvReasons
> reasonably

If the split happened to be 80%/20% or 90%/10%, then no one would complain
even if the author was pocketing $1M/mo. In fact, I and many other people
would likely be ecstatic.

However, knowing the actual split, and knowing that the majority of funding
didn't actually go to developers, it's a lot more difficult to make the social
argument at this time. It necessarily falls back on the practical question of
whether it is effective to advertise in the READMEs. Most of the previous
sponsors were drawn into the social cause but not necessarily the practical
effectiveness of the ads themselves.

Even though it's not a charitable cause, they are trying to make the same
appeals. And if a charitable organization was eating away more than 50% of the
donations in administrative costs, you would likely be very wary.

~~~
git-pull
That evades the point and reintroduces the same thought pattern I've
criticized in my original post.

> Even though it's not a charitable cause, they are trying to make the same
> appeals. And if a charitable organization was eating away more than 50% of
> the donations in administrative costs, you would likely be very wary.

The funding is low, less than a fast food worker. The person running the
operation couldn't even pay his own rent to run it out of an apartment.

Before we start slicing up the pie, we need to have the funds reach a point
where they can sustain themselves. For instance, basic living expenses in
midwestern US. Funds _after_ administrative costs should be the pie.

We have to stop shaking down people who want to help open source when they ask
for funding. It's as if whenever someone tries to fund an open source project
or create a way to fix this problem funding in open source, they're hounded
and dogpiled.

I've seen this sort of entitled, stingy attitude on the part of open source
users, that despite using open source software to their benefit, those doing
the work behind the scenes are shamed for trying to sustain themselves.

It's this strange double bind: first you want your software working, new
features, and that bug fixed, but the one's facilitating that very thing for
you can't have the material means to do it without being shook down.

When I see 10k in funding, less than poverty wage in USA, and people talking
about it as if it was a prize pool instead of operating expenses, that's the
mentality I'd like to see done more thoughtfully.

------
milankragujevic
I strongly dislike Github's decision. I believe people should be allowed to
put ads in their READMEs if they so desire.

~~~
Rainymood
Github is a for-profit organisation. Anything that siphons profits away from
them will be destroyed.

------
joelhooks
It was always a slippery slope. The last thing Github wants is banner ads all
over the place. Sure, this one was tasteful, but if they allow it the door is
open for less savory actors.

------
doiwin
Eric, how is your service tied to GitHub? As far as I understand it, you
simply are a matchmaker for developers and advertisers. And you track clicks
to the advertisers urls. Where the developers put the links to those urls is
not your decision, right?

If so, I don't think GitHub has an angle to attack you.

A developer with a Commission Junction account could very well put CJ links in
their README. That would not give GitHub a vector to attack CJ.

~~~
icebraining
You mean, legal angle? Probably not, but Github can simply ban all links to
Code Sponsor.

~~~
pedro596
But why not get Github out of the equation? I know it might seem a lot to ask
but there are alternatives, Github has their right to ban you but it don't
need to be the end. Or am I missing something?

~~~
TAForObvReasons
Author responded in another thread earlier:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15774729](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15774729)

> 60% of all traffic through Code Sponsor came from Github. 15% came from ad
> blocked traffic (I have no idea the referer). About 15% came from websites
> and then the remainder came from different repository websites (dockerhub,
> npm, etc).

From the monetizable repo views, 86% of all views were from Github. Barring a
massive cultural shift, Github has to be part of the equation.

~~~
cavneb
Yes, we are a way for sponsors and developers to connect. We do not tell
developers where in their code to place the banner. In hindsight, this may
have been part of the problem. Perhaps we should have been more rigid in how
we allow developers to present the banner.

TAForObjReasons is exactly right. Github has to be a part of the equation.

------
phaedryx
For what it's worth, I skimmed Gitlabs terms
([https://about.gitlab.com/terms/](https://about.gitlab.com/terms/)) and don't
see anything about it.

The few Code Sponsor ads I saw on Github were pretty benign, but I can
understand why Github wants to keep them off of their platform.

~~~
cavneb
Unfortunately, Github is where open source lives. The success that Code
Sponsor saw was due to the minimal steps it took for a developer to start
getting paid for open source. Asking developers to move their open source
projects to Gitlab would not work.

~~~
watwut
Why would gitlab not work? Something in their terms and conditions?

~~~
tempay
Because most projects are not already there. Moving a community from GitHub to
GitLab isn't trivial, not to mention all the work required to update material
and avoid broken links.

------
jlukic
Just my two cents here.

When Eric is describing having to wake up at 5 am and work weekends to make
Code Sponsor work even with the proceeds of 60% of all OS projects his ad
network funded, it should be pretty clear the other 40% divided among many OS
coders couldn’t be enough for their project’s development to feel sustainable.

As much as I commend Eric on trying to find a solution to OS maintainability,
I think he actually just reinvented something already available to OS
developers, a niche tasteful ad network, I.e carbon ads
<[https://carbonads.net>](https://carbonads.net>) something which many OS
projects with a large enough audience already include to support development.

~~~
cavneb
Carbon Ads is a wonderful company. They provide an excellent service. However,
per Rollbar, Code Sponsor performed better than they did at about 1/3 the
cost. What does this mean for the developer? Scaling. Rollbar was able to
scale their budget because Code Sponsor provided more interested developers to
their product along at a much lower rate.

What Code Sponsor is is a mashup of Carbon Ads, Open Collective and Read the
Docs (with a hint of grassroots marketing demonstrated by Wesbos). The 40% was
enough for developers. I paid one developer last month over $600. Two others
earned over $400.

Finally, Code Sponsor was available to every open source project. The
popularity of the project is what self-governed the amount of money they would
receive.

Carbon Ads also does not provide any visibility into what is going on. I have
taken extreme effort to give sponsors and developers full visibility into
their traffic patterns. Daily statistics and charts. This allows sponsors to
immediately know how their campaigns are doing and shift if necessary.

Carbon Ads is great, but they are a black box and sponsors want more.

~~~
styfle
As a dev, that was my favorite part of Code Sponsor: being able to see which
repos were doing well and on what days impressions/clicks increased.

I could see a correlation between posting to Hacker News and the amount of
impressions/clicks for that day.

------
aetherspawn
Right, this is disappointing.

But it doesn’t mean that Codesponsor needs to shut down. They could easily
check the referrer and show the ads only on npm, dockerhub, gitlab, hackage
etc and they would still get good coverage.

~~~
cavneb
60% of all traffic through Code Sponsor came from Github. 15% came from ad
blocked traffic (I have no idea the referer). About 15% came from websites and
then the remainder came from different repository websites (dockerhub, npm,
etc).

I agree that this is a good idea, but open source exists on Github. Without
their support, it just won’t happen.

~~~
aetherspawn
Nevertheless, couldn't you just leave it running without GitHub' approval
(perhaps, block requests with referrer from GitHub) and see if it gains
further traction?

~~~
cavneb
The personal cost it would be for me (time from family) to continue to grow
Code Sponsor on the side is not an option. I love open source and want to see
it be sustainable for developers, however, I can't do so anymore at the
expense of my family.

------
nerdwaller
This is too bad to hear, I only recently learned of Code Sponsor on JavaScript
Jabber[0] - a pretty excellent podcast. I’m hoping there are good things to
learn here and maybe iterate on to find what can work in the space.

[0] [https://devchat.tv/js-jabber/jsj-281-codesponsor-
sustaining-...](https://devchat.tv/js-jabber/jsj-281-codesponsor-sustaining-
open-source-software-ethical-advertising-eric-berry)

------
ukulele
Good. I would hate to see OSS go the route of online content, where it's
generated primarily for clicks. GitHub is no saint but I'm glad they have this
policy.

~~~
franciscop
Totally agree, I see more and more ads on Github. I even get a bunch of SPAM
to put ads on my projects since I got a couple of fairly popular projects.

Monetization is still a huge problem, just this is not the way to go about it.

~~~
cavneb
What other solutions do we have to provide scalable funding to open source
projects? This comment really frustrates me. Do we put more buttons on our
repos asking for money from other developers? Do we try to find corporate
sponsorship and hope that they don’t try to influence the project? And if we
did want to go that route, how do we do it?

Why is this not the right way to go about it? The “ads” were relevant,
unobtrusive and ethical. There was never any click tracking, never any
remarketing, nothing.

Code Sponsor provided the FIRST and ONLY means of scalable funding for open
source projects. It was not depending on charity from others. It was a
business transaction between sponsors and developers. The sponsors saw a
return and the developers got paid to continue doing what they love.

If anyone else has a better idea, please share. Until then, I claim that it’s
IS the right way to go about it.

~~~
isoos
I understand your frustration: in an ideal world, we should be able to easily
reward people who contribute to the greater good, and open source developers
are certainly in that category.

However, this reward may not always be money: community recognition and
extended network, better chances of hiring, or attribution from projects that
depend on you should also be considered.

Yeah, it is valid to say that funding needs to be improved. But while ads
provide a way, it is a stretching to call it the only or the right way. Maybe
open source development is just fine with corporate sponsorship + people doing
it in their free time. Maybe developers are repelled by ads so much that it
actually hinders contributing to interesting projects. Maybe charity and
donations work better we just haven't figured it out yet (see Patreon, which
had a surprising success, despite the skepticism around microfunding).

~~~
cavneb
> Community recognition and extended network, better chances of hiring, or
> attribution from projects

This has been the case since day 1. It is a great motivation for people to get
into open source, but there gets to be a point where this is no longer a
motivation. As their projects become more and more popular, they are having to
work nights and weekends to keep the project alive and maintained.

> May be open source development is just fine with corporate sponsorship +
> people doing it in their free time

Again, this is how it’s always been. Most open source projects do not look for
corporate sponsorship because they don’t know where to start. Working in free
time is great until it isn’t.

> Maybe developers are repelled by ads...

This is true. Some are repelled. But ask yourselves if the Code Sponsor banner
looks like an ad? It was crafted in a way to look enough like the
documentation to not distract developers from the README, but different enough
to not be considered deceiving.

> Maybe charity and donations work better

Ask Kent C. Dodds this question. He had the charity buttons on every one of
his repos and he received $0 in donations. Scalable funding cannot come from
charity, it has to come from marketing funds.

------
cavneb
A lot of people are saying that Github is shutting down Code Sponsor. This is
not the case. Github is not forcing Code Sponsor to shut down. They are only
forcing us to remove all banners from their README’s. The decision to shut
down is because the impact Code Sponsor could have on sustaining open source
is minimal without Github’s blessing.

~~~
dragonwriter
So, GitHub isn't shutting down Code Sponsor, just taking action that makes it
impossible for you to function effectively which is, as a practical matter,
forcing you to shut down.

That seems to an extremely fine distinction, bordering on one without any
difference at all.

------
messutied
What about placing the sponsor ads in the projects websites instead of in the
READMEs? couldn't that be a viable option?

~~~
cavneb
This is also part of what Code Sponsor offered. We are currently sponsoring
many amazing websites.

------
andreliem
What about the repos which have documentation off github and do sponsorships.
Would code sponsor work in that space? Sorry I don't know the details of how
code sponsor works but I do see lots of sponsorships on the main docs for lots
of solid open source projects.

~~~
cavneb
This was a manual process, but we do have several projects like this
sponsored.

~~~
andreliem
Ah got it, so in respects to your business github's value was as a channel of
distribution... and without it your costs of marketing and user acquisition
sky rocket?

------
peterbraden
Thanks for giving it a shot. There needs to be better options to fund open
source. I signed up for Code Sponsor last week, sad it's shutting already.

------
pm
I'm sorry to hear, I thought this was a good idea.

~~~
cavneb
Thank you

------
rtpg
What was the difference between code sponsor and general "donate" buttons?

~~~
cavneb
Donate buttons don’t work. They are asking for money from other developers.
Imagine 100 developers in a room and each one takes out their purse or wallet
and hands a dollar to the left. It’s not scalable, and it feels like begging.

Code Sponsor took the approach that scalable funding should come through
marketing budgets, not charity. Companies pay developers to place a non-
obtrusive, relevant and ethical banner on their repo or website and the
developer gets paid on a per-click basis. The larger the repo, the more clicks
they get. It is self-normalizing.

~~~
soneca
I believe there is a chance of making it happen through donations like Patreon
did for creatives. A Patreon for OSS would be a good pivot, don't you think?

~~~
manigandham
Patreon already does OSS if the creator wants to list there, but there's also
[https://opencollective.com](https://opencollective.com) that has gained
traction with many top projects for official funding.

------
khc
For someone who didn't know about this, what did the links look like?

~~~
cavneb
See this article: [https://medium.com/@codesponsor/fighting-for-open-source-
sus...](https://medium.com/@codesponsor/fighting-for-open-source-
sustainability-introducing-code-sponsor-577e0ccca025)

Here's an example of what it looks like:

[https://github.com/erikras/redux-form](https://github.com/erikras/redux-form)

