Yes, MkDocs is an example of someone that's using a platform to good advantage. But the advantage they are using it for is to sell an excludable good: "new features are first exclusively released to sponsors."[1] Nothing wrong with that, but this constitutes "jumping through hoops" according to the view laid out in my post. Can we get to no hoops? That's the intriguing challenge!
>>
Can we get to no hoops? That's the intriguing challenge!
<<
That's definitely a challenge :-)!
I'm unfamiliar with the concepts of institutional analysis but definitely interested in learning more.
I'm also interested in the Functional Source License.
I'm skeptical though! I live in a country where corporations will literally make people work for food if they can. It's very hard for me to imagine how an open source project gives away the thing of value that it produces and only afterwards gets the money it needs to survive.
Solving the open source sustainability problem would actually be world changing.
For now I'm following you on Twitter and look forward to future posts.
Isn't MkDocs an example of someone that's using a platform to good advantage?
The thing that impresses me about MkDocs is that it's a project that actually produces truly open source code, for donations.
And to some extend it also maintains that code for donations.
----------
The fatal flaw that I see in something like thanks.dev is that it will still suffer from the 'tragedy of the commons'.
That is, you cannot rely on the 'informed generosity' of your users.
That is, users will only give you money to 'solve a problem' for them, so maintaining your project has to be a problem for them.