2026-10-17 15:02 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@MaddieM4@raphus.social 2026-10-17 16:58
@nina_kali_nina@tech.lgbt I think most people will dislike this answer, but... I assume that the "funding problem" is just a thing to accept about the world. That building ethical and liberating software is never going to be lucrative, and that actually, it cannot risk being lucrative. So how to make money (beyond keeping infra lights on) is very fundamentally the wrong question. The right question is: how do you make a complete stack of useful software on a budget of shoestrings and spare change? This isn't defeatist, it's guerrilla. It goes hand in hand with my belief that software should be small. And also that most "hard problems" are just wrong - like, web browsers are a blight upon our reality at the requirements level, before you even start taking implementation, although they're a "necessary evil" to interact with our current infrastructure.
-
@happyborg@fosstodon.org 2026-10-17 15:10
@nina_kali_nina@tech.lgbt Limiting the size of donations might reduce corruption (which is why there are ineffective or no limits in the most corrupt countries). USA 👀 As for anonymity, transparency can also limit corruption. Anywhere that money buys influence gives disproportionate power to those with, over those with less, and failing to address this is the fundamental problem with most systems.
-
@petko@social.petko.me 2026-10-17 15:11
@nina_kali_nina@tech.lgbt negative publicity clauses are a thing, and projects accepting donations must insist on having one that allows them to terminate the sponsorship contract. The sponsorship contracts must also include a pre-determined period of validity. I.e. a corp donated to you once 5 years ago, now they decide that bombing the middle east is cool. You should be fine with deleting any marketing reference to them in your project.