We have quite a budget collected over the last 5 years, and while we're really happy to see so many in the Jellyfin community contribute to us, we want to ask you to stop! No, really. We don't actually need your money. At least, not here an...
We have quite a budget collected over the last 5 years, and while we're really happy to see so many in the Jellyfin community contribute to us, we want to ask you to stop!
No, really. We don't actually need your money. At least, not here and now.
We have over $24,000 in the bank, and with average monthly expenses of only ~$600, that's over 40 months (3.3 years) of runway! So, we have plenty of money for the near future.
Thus, at this time, we want you to seriously consider donating to the authors of Clients you use, instead of (or in addition to) the main project. Client support is the hardest part of the Jellyfin ecosystem to keep going, and most of them are maintained by only a single person or very small team. With the API changes in 10.9.0 and the upcoming 10.10.0 releases, they're going to be very busy trying to keep up, and thus could really use your support in a way that the core project here doesn't right now.
So, if there's a client you use every day and that you love, consider finding it's author in our list of official clients, and sending them a little something instead (or too).
No, this doesn't violate our policy of "no paid development", because donations are just that - donations. We will still not honour bug bounties or similar, and still not use our collective finance here for paid development. So don't feel like you're doing something wrong, you're not!
I'll leave this notice up until we drop to ~1 year (12 months) of remaining runway, at which time we can re-evaluate where we're at.
Happy watching!
I personally would rather see then take some of the "extra" money and apportion it to suitable client projects themselves, but I can understand them not wanting to become financial administrators in that way.
How can costs only be $600 / month. Do they not pay themselves? I guess that's admirable, but it doesn't set a good precedent. Will any young developers read this and internalize that they shouldn't ask for money? OSS maintainers deserve to get paid for their efforts.
Totally agree, this honestly sounds a bit like putting principles before reason. Personally, I don't at all see why paying people for their work would make projects adhere any less to the "open source ethos", even though I hear this idea a lot. I think that in an ideal world, it should be possible to contribute to OSS projects full-time and make a living, financed by donations from dependants (including corporations) that profit off of the free software and have a vested interest in continued and rapid development of the project.
If you really don't want the money to reward contributors, why not pass it on to open-source dependencies of your project that are looking for funding? FOSS projects not scrambling for funding is pretty rare today unfortunately.
Yes completely agree. The cool thing about opencollective is the transparency - that should mean the core devs should be happy to pay themselves some money for their time. This is how projects sustain themselves IMHO.
Hard to believe, but there is still people out there doing thongs for fun or to make the world a better place.
Its very sad to think that all efforts shall be rewarded by money alone.
All the open source contributions I do, I do for free, just because I feel obliged to give back to the community, and I think its the right thing to do.
I don't condemn devs who want to make money out of open source, but I applause those who truly understand what is at the base of the concept of open source and are able to contribute for the fun or for the good of it.
I fully agree with everything you said. I too have contributed countless hours to open source for personal enjoyment or for the good of the community and never been paid a cent.
The thing I lament is this sense I've seen in some circles that accepting donations or getting paid is somehow shameful. That the mere act of being compensated somehow diminishes the contribution. You can be paid and do it for the love of coding and do it for the benefit of everyone.
Everyone has the right to refuse payment, and people who do's wishes need to be respected. And I don't know the beliefs of the Jellyfin devs. But to me, a post like this feeds into that vague feeling that being paid somehow makes your contributions less "pure" or "desirable", than if you're solely doing it for fun or selfless reasons.
It's my strong belief that for open source alternatives to truly take off and go toe to toe with big tech, there needs to be a robust funding model underpinning it. If we as a community even see accepting donations as somehow "lesser than", what chance do we have of ever getting there?
Jellyfin is such a great piece of software and I'm so glad the main project has the funds they need. I follow one of the lead android tv app developers and I'll absolutely plug him as a great place to send some donations. These people do enterprise grade work as a hobby and absolutely deserve a few of our dollars.
Open collective can let you specify where you want that donated money to go, so if the jellyfin admins wanted to they could have set OC up in such a way that donations could go to specific areas - not just clients, but specific feature development even.
If you're concerned that your donation to the project wouldn't go to something you value or your wanted to ensure a client you cared about had support, that would have been a better way to manage it.
I really think jellyfin is making a mistake by not centralising development costs for all the various clients and such out there, especially for those that require some developer account or certification to get on a storefront.
This is great to hear, now maybe hire some more developers to make it work so i can switch. I desperately want to ditch plex, and i have jellyfin installed along side it for testing. It still regularly fails at basic content matching, playback of various files, and has significantly worse transcoding performance than plex.
So while I'm desperate to escape them as they charge for basic features like tone mapping I'm also stuck until an alternative is at least as usable as plex. It's the one thing i don't have an open source self host for at this point.
I've got immich for photos, Seafile for storage, my own pastebin, a piped instance (YouTube front end), a whoogle instance and several other self host alternatives. Really hoping jellyfin can take over for plex
I'm not sure, probably? I gave up on trying to setup the -arr suite in my cluster because I was having issues with sharing PVCs.
But I'd like to get everything playing nicely soonish. I was hoping for something all-in-one because each of the -arr apps has so much to configure, and there's a ton of interchangeable parts in the space, and I'd rather not have the cognitive overload of all the decisions and have a config that just works™
it's worth thinking if they put that money in a basic account with 5% interest (I get 4.5% in one of my accounts and 5.2% in another, so I'll simplify), with $24k in there, that would be $100 per month, or 20% of their monthly budget.
7% is quite common with basic etfs, but it's more annoying to move money back to pay bills then. My point is: this could/should last even longer. Money which doesn't increase in value, loses value (inflation).
Taking donations for a specific purpose (developing jellyfin core) then spending it on something else (donations to other related projects) is something donors and tax authorities generally frown on
If I donate to a project or charity, o would not be happy of my money went to another project I didn't agree with. Especially when bad things could happen our of their control. It is all risk, no benefit. Advising donators to donate where its needed is better than using their donated funds.
If they donated to a client for a niche device and it turned out there was code in it that gobbled up peoples data without consent it would backfire horribly.
Time and time again, media will be removed from public viewing for nearly any reason. Online streaming services have what you want to watch only so long as their license to it is valid. Once it expires, it's gone off that platform - and not always to another one. Or the media gets edited to remove or alter something the owners don't want to promote.
This is even true for the varying methods of sailing. Not everything will be available indefinitely. Certainly not at zero effort. While not being as simple as signing up for a service and watching a low bitrate copy of something within thirty seconds, it's not rocket science. You can get Jellyfin running with a small library in half an hour.
Ultimately, do what suits you. A local media server works for some. Others will have everything in a single folder and view it through VLC. It's pretty irrelevant though when the vast majority just pay a subscription to one or multiple of the streaming companies that continue to serve watered down libraries at ever increasing prices.
I don't know what you are talking about. I have never been unable to access whatever media I wanted using nothing but a web browser for the last 20 years.
The last problem I can remember having is not being able to see season 2 of interview with a vampire on streamio because of some weird glitch. So I opened a browser and played it in like 15 seconds just by googling what I wanted to watch and Free TV.