Follow

For those interested in and development, would you please take a look at raphael.lullis.net/open-source and share your thoughts?

> a social network: a profile page, a way to write posts, follow others, participate in discussions, etc.
That's just fediverse.

> a feature where every user can have a page for their projects and that people can organize themselves in teams.
Sounds like Gitea with their currently in-development federation feature with ActivityPub now.

> also consider a Patreon-style sponsorship program. Any team or project can offer special rewards or exclusive products for other users who back them directly.
Pretty sure that's possible with Gitea extensions but I need to check.

> access to the website is obtained through a membership of $3-5/month.
> Ads. Companies could be interested in promoting their products...
That's enough to make people from my side because actively hostile against this idea when with its good parts. Because if I'm paying and still seeing ads regardless of how "privacy protecting" they are, there's no point in paying.

> There is also the chance of turning such a venture into a proper 503 Foundation.
Consider talking with a lawyer first.

And have a nice day.

@colinsmatt11

Thanks for the comments. Quick responses:

- Yes, it would probably be based on the fediverse.

- No, I wouldn't even worry about code hosting. People could host projects wherever/however they want.

- You are not paying to "avoid ads". You are contributing to the fund that gives out money to the developers you choose. In any case, ad viewing could be optional.

- Agree on the "talk to a lawyer", but first let's see how many people actually would be interested?

> People could host projects wherever/however they want
I think atleast having a copy of their lastest branch might be better because people can see what the developer is doing without leaving the platform.
And you can later attach a hosting service if it's successful.

@colinsmatt11

Sure, one could. But the point I am trying to make is that this service would be mostly a coordination mechanism for resource gathering and redistribution.

The participants would have to be aware that their money is meant to help OSS funding, not that they are getting "stuff" in return. The more "stuff" this service has to provide, the more it would cost to operate and the less would be made available to OSS developers.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Communick Social

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!