GitHub should charge everyone $1 more per month to fund open source

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of the $1 Proposal

  • Many commenters note the title is misleading: the idea is to charge org users on paid plans, not “everyone.”
  • Some think this could raise a meaningful fund (millions/month) and modestly improve sustainability for key projects.
  • Others argue the amount per maintainer would be tiny given the number of projects and developers involved.

Metrics, Abuse, and Perverse Incentives

  • Basing payouts on dependency usage (e.g., mentions in package.json / requirements.txt) is widely criticized:
    • Rewards micro‑packages and transitive “wrapper” dependencies far more than core, hard work.
    • Strong incentive to create spammy packages and push them into dependency trees, especially with AI code‑gen.
  • Static, algorithmic rules are seen as guaranteed to be gamed; examples from NPM, Tea.xyz, and Spotify‑style streaming scams are mentioned.
  • Popularity is not seen as a good proxy for real value, ongoing effort, or security‑critical maintenance.

What Open Source “Owes” and Is Owed

  • One camp: FOSS is fundamentally a gift; licenses explicitly say “AS‑IS, NO WARRANTY.”
    • Using it without paying is morally fine; maintainers don’t owe support, features, or fixes.
    • If you want changes or guarantees, you should pay or build it yourself; saying “no” is normal.
  • Other camp: load‑bearing volunteer projects create real risk (burnout, unmaintained, insecure infra).
    • When something becomes critical infrastructure, companies should be expected–or at least strongly nudged–to fund it.
    • Some want mechanisms that make it easier to transition from hobby to funded maintenance without “begging.”

Alternatives to a GitHub Tax

  • Dual/commercial licensing, non‑commercial clauses, or “free for individuals/small biz” models.
  • Direct corporate sponsorships, grants, and public funding; some see OSS as a public good best funded via taxes or government programs.
  • Better use of existing tools (GitHub Sponsors, OpenCollective, npm fund), plus easier org‑level sponsorship workflows.
  • Broader ideas: UBI or stronger safety nets so more people can afford to do uncompensated creative/OSS work.

Centralization, Power, and Microsoft

  • Significant distrust of making Microsoft/GitHub a de facto tax collector and allocator:
    • Risk of capture, enshitification, rent‑seeking, and further lock‑in around a single proprietary hub.
    • Worry that “I pay GitHub, so you owe me” attitudes would worsen entitlement toward maintainers.
  • Some argue Microsoft itself, not users, should be putting a substantial share of its profits into OSS, especially given Copilot and AI trained on public code.