@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+++
layout = "post"
title = "Donations Accepted"
date = 2023-07-15
tags = ["off-topic", "funding", "foss", "github", "hearts & minds"]
summary = """"""
+++
I rarely *enjoy* using free and open-source software. Which I admit seems very
counter-intuitive given how often I proselytize FOSS, and how much I attempt to
use **only** FOSS. I'm absolutely convinced that FOSS is the simplest way to
write ethical software. So if that is true, how can I say I don't enjoy using
it?
The simplistic answer is the same for why seemingly everyone chooses proprietary
software; it's just easier[^yt]. There's clearly a large quality gap between
FOSS and Proprietary code. Maybe it's prettier, maybe it crashes less, maybe it
has that one feature you need. Truth be told, none of these are hard problems,
all could be very easy to fix given someone spends the time. And there's the
problem. Free and open-source software, usually meets all meanings for the word
free. Only until you consider the time-cost to create that software. Proprietary
software isn't better, it's only they're more likely to be able to afford to
fund the extra time required.
[^yt]: It's also part of why I'm linking to a proprietary video site. :/
If FOSS is really better, why isn't it able to fund the time it takes? Given the
choice, shouldn't everyone choose to write open-source code? Yes, effectively
everyone who's given the choice does choose to write open-source code. The
reason proprietary code exists is because the choice most software developers
are given is between "write code for a FOSS project," or have enough food to
eat, and a place to live, with enough money support loved ones. Well, a false
choice doesn't actually count as a choice at all.
Given these options, charging for proprietary software is the only reasonable
outcome! Except, no, not really. There's *countless* "content creators" that are
able to make enough money to live off of. Not just live, but also to be able to
create the art that they love. Not just creating art, but they're able to then
share that art openly and freely. Not just enough to live, and create, and
share, but also a significant number receive enough money to be able to pay
additional people to help them create what they want to create. They've built
their own niche. This isn't even a new one either, patronage of the arts is the
reason why, most of the best art that exists today exists. Because someone with
money decided that other people should be able to enjoy and experience something
good too[^the rest].
[^the rest]: The rest of the best art exists because it's creator had no choice,
they simply couldn't not create it. Which sounds like reason for some of the
best the open-source today.
A lot of the people creating the art that I enjoy, are "small"[^small] creators.
Ones who never ask for donations, or support, but still commonly receive them.
They're given donations not because it's expected, or needed, but because
someone wanted to try to demonstrate the value they received from the art
they've created and shared. And it's *never* expected. The response is always
shock. They're unable to see the value their work is able to bring to others.
[^small]: Small referring **only** to size of their audience when compared to
artists creating full time.
I know that I'm guilty of this myself. I'm not always going to be able to
understand the value my work brings to others. And that's ok, It's not for me to
decide how much value people get from my work. Despite the idea that logic and
creativity are polar opposites. Coders are creative people, and writing code is
innately a creative endeavor. The parallels continue, similar to the idea it's
not the artists responsibility to tell someone how they should feel about some
art, or what it's supposed to mean. Value means many different things to many
different people. It's why some donate thousands of dollars, while others
donate thousands of hours.
Open-source, or perhaps software in general, is just barely starting to come to
this understanding itself. The culture around art is that of giving. To many of
us writing software, we are still stuck with the malignant idea that asking is
shameful, or that donations are some how unfair. That idea is brain-dead! [It
**is** fair](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMj_P_6H69g), don't be tricked by
it just because it's common, and where possible try not to allow anyone else to
be tricked by it either.
Some of the experts in writing free open-source software have not only proven
that you can live the life you want to live by accepting donations, but they've
gone on to prove that [writing free software isn't a zero-sum
game](https://andrewkelley.me/post/why-donating-to-musl-libc-project.html).
Which seems to mean that just like it's impossible to know how much value
someone is able to get, it's also impossible to know how much value even the
smallest of donations to free and open-source software can generate.
All of the above is why today, I'm coming to you, gray hat in hand. To tell you
I'm now [accepting donations on github](https://github.com/GrayHatter). Donator
caveat[^caveat] I've done so only so that I can tell you, you should do the
same, even if you're fortunate enough that you don't need the money, or perhaps
**especially** if you don't need the money[^experts]. If you've written *any*
open-source code, take the time to allow your users to donate to you and your
projects. You may not need the money, but someone else writing good software
that I need in my life might; and they [may not be able to
ask](https://youtu.be/xMj_P_6H69g?t=402).
[^caveat]: I'm not currently accepting any money. Just donations, anything
that's donated to me I will re-donate to an open-source creator that I feel
could use that money better than me.
[^experts]: If you're an expert, or close to it, or not even close and you've just
written some code once. The young engineers are watching you, and they'll
copy you. If you don't accept donations, those who want to write code will
see that you don't and will think they shouldn't too. Help me teach them
that earning a living off open-source is both good, and possible! It can
only benefit everyone.
P.s. for anyone reading that happens to have extra money. While I don't
currently need your support, there are thousands of projects that could use your
support, and an uncountably large number of users who already benefit from that
project who would also share in the generosity of that projects patrons.