Check out our Monthly Survey Page to see what our users are running.

OBS Studio gains another big sponsor with Facebook

By - | Views: 29,426

Do you make videos? Livestream? Well, you probably know of or use the cross-platform open source OBS Studio and how it's basically the go-to for such things and they just gained another huge sponsor.

Facebook join Twitch in being a top-level "Premiere Tier" sponsor, meaning they give a higher sum than $50,000 (which is the minimum for Diamond Tier, which is down a level). In a new blog post on the official OBS site, they mentioned how they're now looking to grow their team thanks to the level of funding they have been getting. Ending on a personal note, developer Hugh Bailey ("Jim") mentioned how thankful they are for the support from "sponsors, contributors, volunteers, and especially all of our users" as without them all it wouldn't be where it is.

Unsurprisingly (since it's Facebook), the reaction has been quite poor in some areas. Some people believe (wrongly) that being sponsored means they're now in some ways owned by Facebook, which is not true. It's basically a fancy regular donation and sometimes extra help in other needed areas. OBS Studio is still open source, independent and will continue to be so as clarified by OBS Studio's business dev in a Twitter thread.

I think this is great, I use OBS Studio often as does our livestreamer (join us on Twitch!) and we would be quite stuck without how easy it makes doing so many things together. If people working on open source get offered money, they should take it. This is another validation that open source is awesome and worth it.

You can find out more about OBS Studio on the official site.

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Apps, Open Source
14 Likes, Who?
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. We are currently affiliated with GOG, Humble Store and Paradox Interactive. See more here.
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
25 comments
Page: «3/3
  Go to:

14 1 Mar
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: 14
Quoting: Eike
Quoting: 14The fact that Facebook gave money to OBS does not take away any of your money to donate somewhere of your choosing.

Yeah, after the wealthiest people and companies spent their billions, I'm still free to decide where to put my ten bucks. Cool.

Reminds me of the quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
I do not understand the point you're making. I mean, I get the point, but it's not applicable. A rich entity donated money somewhere, and that somehow makes it pointless for anyone that's not rich to donate anywhere...? You might as well just stop going to work if you can't earn the same amount of money as the richest corporations in the world with that logic.

So, the OP was Facebook donating money, and that makes you angry. It's sounding to me like you wish you could control Facebook's money yourself. Or, maybe your solution would be that nobody is allowed to earn lots of money or not allowed to donate. What is your ideal here?
1. Dealing with major social problems via the actions of private charities is very ineffective. It simply doesn't get the job done; it tends to amount to treating cancer with 500 bandaids. It's useful to the individuals helped, compared to nothing, but it has no impact on the overall situations giving rise to individuals needing help. Public sector action is much more effective. If you want to reduce poverty, increasing taxation to fund social programs or Keynesian economic policies is far more effective than hoping people will donate some of their untaxed income to food banks.
My opinion is not to eliminate or reduce taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations. I am not saying to replace existing taxes with donations. I am saying that the ability to reduce some of your taxes via non-profit donations is a good thing.
14 1 Mar
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: Eike
Quoting: 14It's sounding to me like you wish you could control Facebook's money yourself. Or, maybe your solution would be that nobody is allowed to earn lots of money or not allowed to donate. What is your ideal here?

I don't know honestly, but for sure it's far from 1 % of the people controlling half of the wealth and controlling welfare by giving or not giving their donations. What's yours? You're cool with the actual situation?
I am not cool with the wealth(power) disparity situation. I am cool with donations to open-source projects and I'm also cool with tax reductions based on donations to non-profits (not applicable to the OP).

It seemed hyper-sensitive and maybe missing the point to be triggered on the 1% issue based on this donation news. That is really what I'm trying to understand -- whether I'm missing a simple and obvious connection, or if some of us are conceited.

It's really easy to point at problems and demand someone to fix them, and to rally with other people that feel the same way. It is, however, much better to try to come up with solutions. In the scope of topics we've been going over, there isn't a simple one; it is in contrast NOT really easy.
14 1 Mar
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: 14
Quoting: Eike
Quoting: 14The fact that Facebook gave money to OBS does not take away any of your money to donate somewhere of your choosing.

Yeah, after the wealthiest people and companies spent their billions, I'm still free to decide where to put my ten bucks. Cool.

Reminds me of the quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
I do not understand the point you're making. I mean, I get the point, but it's not applicable. A rich entity donated money somewhere, and that somehow makes it pointless for anyone that's not rich to donate anywhere...? You might as well just stop going to work if you can't earn the same amount of money as the richest corporations in the world with that logic.

So, the OP was Facebook donating money, and that makes you angry. It's sounding to me like you wish you could control Facebook's money yourself. Or, maybe your solution would be that nobody is allowed to earn lots of money or not allowed to donate. What is your ideal here?
3. Even if that doesn't result in those big actors contributing most of the money, it does tend to result in their taking over the charities involved. Small donations don't come with opinions about policy attached; large numbers of small donations are basically "background". But big donations very often come with quid pro quo attached; the big donors want the organization to prioritize particular things. So for instance, if you look at the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, they give major donations to health initiatives in the Third World. They also have very big investments in pharmaceutical companies. So when they donate to an organization, they want the org to prioritize initiatives that will buy expensive pharmaceuticals over initiatives that will buy mosquito netting. Even if the mosquito netting would be far, far cheaper and more effective. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is also invested in various companies involved in private provision of education. Not surprisingly, it donates to and is involved in organizations that push for "charter" schools and, in general, privatization of education. So it's ratfucking the public education system in the name of charity. More generally, if you look at universities who get donations from alumni, the wealthy alumni with major donations tend to steer the priorities of the universities--they donate to business schools and chairs in economics, not to chairs in ecology or the humanities, let alone labour studies.
So if you hollow out public systems and "replace" them with charitable donations, what you get is wealthy people setting the policy approaches of the charities, and the policy approaches will favour generation of profits for the wealthy donors over actual efficient aid to needy recipients.
OK, keep in mind that just me quoting an excerpt and replying does not always mean I am countering your points.

I want to add that, on the topic of charitable donations, I don't think the government is a better (as in: good-er) distributor of funds than corporations. The government has a primary interest of self-preservation (not a bad thing in itself). Corporations do as well. The government is not a superhero. Don't let us forget how much influence corporations have on the government: I don't see them as that much different from each other.

(By government, I solely have the U.S. in mind.)
Eike 1 Mar
Quoting: 14It seemed hyper-sensitive and maybe missing the point to be triggered on the 1% issue based on this donation news. That is really what I'm trying to understand -- whether I'm missing a simple and obvious connection, or if some of us are conceited.

I was triggered by the following:

QuoteThe fact that Facebook gave money to OBS does not take away any of your money to donate somewhere of your choosing.

Of course it doesn't, but when looking at the whole... donation industry, people giving literally billions of bucks does take lots of meaning from what you and me have to give. And donating is executing power.

That said, yes, the connection isn't obvious and I'm fine with being called triggered. :)
dodgepong 2 Mar
Hi, Ben Torell (@dodgepong) here. I want to say a few things in response to the discussion here.

First off, as my Twitter bio says, my full time job is as a full stack web developer for a language services provider. We don't use OBS at my job at all, as it is not connected to video production in any way. All the livestreaming and video production I've done in the past has been as a hobby in my free time, and in net, I have lost a lot more money on it than I have gained. If OBS were to cease existing, my full-time job would not be affected whatsoever.

Second, OBS is not currently a non-profit, but we are in the process of putting one together. One of the primary reasons we want to have a non-profit is to protect the program and its goals from outside corporate interest. Being a non-profit would protect OBS itself from being bought, and would legally obligate the developers to act in accordance with its charitable mission.

Thanks for mentioning LibrePay, I wasn't aware that existed. That said, the main advantage Open Collective provides (for which we are paying a 10% fee) is that of fiscal sponsorship, and thus their ability to handle corporate payments better than your average consumer level payment processor. Larger contributions end up using ACH, for example, and they handle a lot of the legwork that makes that seamless on our side. Personally I think the 10% is just the cost of doing business, and I think it's been worth it because it has enabled us to receive contributions beyond what we would have been able to do otherwise. Once we get the non-profit set up, we may end up moving away from Open Collective, but I think it has served a useful purpose for the time being.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Patreon, Liberapay or PayPal Donation.

We have no adverts, no paywalls, no timed exclusive articles. Just good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register

Or login with...
Sign in with Steam Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Google
Social logins require cookies to stay logged in.