GitHub应该向每个人每月收取1美元,以资助开源项目。
GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

原始链接: https://blog.greg.technology/2025/11/27/github-should-charge-1-dollar-more-per-month.html

Greg Technology 提出了一种新的开源软件资助模式,认为目前依赖免费劳动是不可持续的。他建议建立一种制度,组织需要支付一笔小额月费——可能为每个列在 `package.json` 中的依赖项 5 美元,或每位员工 1 美元,资金将根据使用情况分配给开源维护者。 他设想 GitHub 等平台将其作为一项退出费用实施(例如,每月每用户 1 美元),汇入一个“开源基金”,资金分配方式类似于 Spotify 向艺术家支付的方式,尽管承认 Spotify 存在缺陷。该想法旨在超越基于捐赠的资助,认识到关键开源基础设施背后的价值和劳动。 虽然他承认这个想法还很粗糙,需要进一步完善(例如考虑 Linux 和 Dockerfile 依赖项),但他强调需要一个比当前系统更好的系统,在当前系统中,重要的代码基本上是“任人使用的”。

## GitHub 资助开源:一场激烈的讨论 最近一篇 Hacker News 上的帖子引发了关于资助开源开发的争论。核心观点是:GitHub 应该向用户收取每月 1 美元的费用,用于创建一个基金,分配给开源维护者。 许多人同意开源劳动不应被视为理所当然,但对于*如何*补偿开源劳动,意见不一。一些人认为开发者自愿贡献是一种馈赠,期望报酬会降低开源的精神。另一些人则认为,维护者不应该承担对已成为关键基础设施的项目进行意外、大规模支持的负担。 人们对公平分配提出了担忧——基于使用量的模式可能会偏袒流行但简单的项目,并鼓励依赖垃圾信息。其他的建议包括对大型科技公司征税或改进现有的赞助模式。一个关键点是支付处理的困难,突出了隐私问题以及对更简单、更不具侵入性的系统的需求。 最终,这场讨论强调了开源的协作、馈赠性质与对可持续资助模型日益增长的需求之间的紧张关系,以防止倦怠并确保持续维护。
相关文章

原文

Listen to me.

there should be a thing that reads your package.json and charges you $5/month per dependency - you don’t /have/ to! you could set the price to $1 per employee! - and then holds the funds and sends it to the people who made the code you use to do business how is not doing this more sustainable

— Greg Technology ❪⎷❫ (@greg.technology) January 13, 2026 at 9:13 PM

It is crazy, absolutely crazy to depend on open source to be free (as beer). It is not okay - it is not okay to consider that this labor fell from the sky and is a gift, and that the people/person behind are just doing it for their own enjoyments.

It is impossible to imagine that what we’re doing today is the only way. Begging/busking for donations, hoping to get noticed. Hoping for a lifeline.

Hence, a solution. Or an idea, really. Incredibly half-baked. Poke all the holes you want. It’s very unwrought and muy unripe.

GitHub should charge every org $1 more per user per month and direct it into an Open Source fund, held in escrow.

Those funds would then be distributed by usage - every mention in a package.json or requirements.txt gets you a piece of the pie.

You know how the money you pay to Spotify is very very very approximately (and not really fairly) distributed among artists that you listened to? Yes, Spotify is a very flawed model and artists are not doing well. But it is a model??

That’s it. That’s the idea. Call it the “Open Source Fund” thing, make it opt-out. Give every org a magical badge - or the ability to set their profile’s background css.

Or don’t! Let’s not do anything! People’s code and efforts - fueling incredibly critical bits of infrastructure all around the world - should just be up for grabs. Haha! Suckers!

Alright, I don’t know how you fund Linux (does Linux appear in a requirements file). Hmm. Maybe FROM commands from Dockerfiles are also read & applied. Maybe we at least start somewhere?

Anyway, you all smarter than me people can figure it out. I just cannot accept that what we have is “GOOD”. xx

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com