The Open Source Endowment Foundation's homepage advocates for sustainable funding of critical open-source software through a community-driven endowment model. The content strongly engages with human rights principles related to labor rights, fair compensation for unpaid maintainers, freedom of expression through code sharing, and democratic participation in governance, while emphasizing solution-oriented approaches to addressing systemic underfunding and infrastructure fragility.
Over the last few years I've talked with hundreds of people in the dev community, and almost everyone shared the same concern: there's no sustainable funding for critical OSS maintenance, and without it the modern world runs on an increasingly fragile foundation.
I have personal experience with university endowments, and at some point noticed that the open source world is remarkably similar to a top research university. They share the same reputation-based culture and functions — collaborative creation of IP as a public good, educating each other within thematic clusters, and commercializing only a small fraction of what they produce.
For universities, humanity has just two sustainable funding models: public spending or private endowments. Government support won't work for OSS at scale — it's too globally decentralized. And yet nobody had built an OSS-focused endowment before. After understanding why, I started building one together with other OSS folks.
Today we're publicly launching the Open Source Endowment — a community-driven endowment fund dedicated to sustainably funding maintainers of the most critical open source projects. All donations are invested in a low-risk portfolio, and only the investment income (~5%/year) is used for grants, making it independent of annual budgets and tech market volatility.
We recently received US 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity status. The fund is at ~$700K, formed by 60+ founding donors — including founders of HashiCorp, Elastic, ClickHouse, Supabase, Vue.js, Pydantic, Nginx, Gatsby, n8n, and curl. Everyone is welcome to join them and participate in governance.
There's no perfect model for distributing OSS grants. Our approach: make it open, data-driven, measurable, and developed by people with skin in the game — donors. I tested this by personally donating $5K to 800+ Python projects in Dec 2024 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42312469). We're now looking to grow our donor community and together finalize the first model for grants in Q2 2026.
This is a pure community charity, and there are two things I'd love from HN:
1) Join as a donor — any amount — and help make OSE the most efficient long-term funding solution for OSS maintainers
2) Nominate OSS projects you think are critically underfunded on the Funding page at endowment.dev
Considering what's happened with Tailwind, this seems to be a very useful initiative.
Plus, OS maintainers now have to deal with agents and vibe coders who can commit plausibly-looking code that doesn't actually do what it's supposed to, so the volume of work for them is only growing.
Do I get this right that you can only nominate projects on Github? It should be known by now that a centralized platform like Github is the complete antithesis to open source.
It's an interesting idea. The current endowment size of less than $1M is immaterial; the question with a project like this will always be how it is able to raise capital.
A way something like this could be interesting is if founders started donating 5% of equity when they started a company to an open source foundation like this one.
It doesn't impact the founder much financially: Success is very binary for founders. But in aggregate, if thousands of startup founders do this, there would be some hits and some of those hits could generate a significant endowment.
(You can also try to get people to donate who feel their success was built on top of open source, but I feel that after 10 years building a company to IPO, one's attention as a founder has likely been on business metrics and spending time with business people, not on technology and spending time with technologists, and that shift in attention can reduce people's feeling of gratitude for the amazing inheritance that is open-source software).
Something I’ve been curious about for a while is why more universities don’t get involved in sponsoring critical projects. In theory it could provide an interesting non-academic path for students and professors and, as you’ve pointed out, the funding model of the U would make sense here.
I’m curious… would you consider having a “faculty” of “tenured” maintainers who receive livable funding and support based on a history of significant contribution? I could imagine something like “named chairs” and professorships you see for some tenured folks in academia. This could be useful for key project leaders, and contributors. In addition, any kind of function to train and develop the next generation of maintainers?
Highly skeptical of undemocratic organizations whose founder immediately talks dismissively of government programs. Comments from OP aren't helping either.
Just another Silicon Valley bro that wants to be in-charge of something with zero democratic control. Very typical in the current environment, which is why it should be soundly rejected.
Funny I was just commenting about something like this regarding Docker[0]. I feel like major corporations could and should adopt OSS projects in this manner especially critical software they all rely on, so that these projects don't have to worry about doing the most ridiculous of things to attain funding to keep themselves going. It's why I imagine Anthropic went ahead and just bought out Bun immediately, Bun was trying to monetize shortly before Anthropic bought them out, now they don't have to worry about that.
In a different world we would incentivize tech giants to sponsor critical open source projects by turning their donations into more serious tax write offs, up to a certain amount, and reviewed by experts within the industry, affiliated and unaffiliated with the companies doing the funding.
I like the concept, I cannot donate today but I intend to do so in the future. I would definitely like to understand more about the distribution model, however.
Agreed. Tailwind shows that a class of business models that were traditionally used to subsidize Open Source are vulnerable now that AI intermediates between downstream and upstream devs. It was always a tenuous funding arrangement, though, because it goes against the true economic grain of OSS as a "gift community." OSE aligns much more closely with the nature of OSS. I doubt we'll be able to help Tailwind in the short run, but hopefully we can address the problem at a deep enough level in the long run to avoid future Tailwinds (as it were).
We discussed this prior to launch, and obviously decided to launch as you see it. :) Our reasoning was that a) standardizing on GitHub URLs makes it easier to do automated analysis as part of the funding model, and b) any project important enough to matter will have at least a GitHub mirror. If you have counter-examples to (b), please comment them on GitHub (see what I did there?) or here and I will copy/paste for you. :)
I'm not an expert here on equity, 5% feels a bit high. I like the idea - even 1% would be significant. In general, could we start to hold accountable and start using public status and tracking of organizational commitment to the open source software they use and make profit off of - that might help a lot as well.
We in general are too naive and fail to hold accountable others and ourselves from contributing back when we use resources from the common public. Open source is like imo the common welfare/public resource. If others are abusing it, its time to call them out for what they are really doing: framing, abusing and stealing from the public and maybe we need to be more serious about this and change the public access (maybe hybrid-open source for companies who use OS software) and create systems to legally enforce these.
The FAQ, under "How can OSE evolve in the long term, especially in an AI-powered world?" appears to state a very pro-AI view.
I think this is hopelessly naive. The LLMs crapping out code are shamelessly ripping off open source code, sans copyright notice. It makes no sense for a foundation supporting open source to also support this massive copyright massacre.
Also, I think you're going to get flooded with requests to give money to vibe-coded crap, because if you have no skills or shame but want to make a little money off your AI-generated crap, why not try and extract money from this initiative? The curl guy showed this is very real.
Consider this as a nonprofit startup that has just raised a pre-seed round. The current size of $700K is indeed immaterial, as our plan is to scale it significantly in the coming years.
The closest real-world comparable to what we are building is the Wikimedia Endowment, whose former Director is among OSE’s advisors. Like Wikimedia, we aim to be supported not only by large donations but also by contributions from large community — in our case, 150M+ GitHub users.
Our target audience is diverse - from highly successful founders to everyday developers. The Open Source Endowment is prepared to accept donations in both cash and stock from these groups.
While 5% of equity may be too much, 1% seems achievable. I am personally ready to commit 1% of the carried interest from my own VC fund to the endowment.
This would very much make sense and generate direct real world products. However, I fear academia is in itself a very competitive space for resources that doesn't necessarily want to open up for outsiders.
> Government support won't work for OSS at scale — it's too globally decentralized...
We recently received US 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity status.
If this is successful in the first iteration, I'd love to see a UK and EU based charities too. That would allow european donors to support on a gross pay basis, and may simplify grants to european nationals too. (I'm sure similar things apply in other jurisdictions too.)
Well, speaking in the case of the US, this would constitute product development which is well outside the scope of what a 501(c)(3) organization should be doing, which could thereby jeopardize their tax status? Or, in the case of a state-run university, this raises all kinds of issues regarding how tax money is being given away to random schmoes instead of benefitting the public at large.
So, yeah, there's plenty of reasons why they don't do that.
Open source wouldn't have a funding problem if people would stop being so averse to just paying for what they use. Maybe... the world should stop expecting something for nothing.
The project has involvement from people who have spent decades dedicated to these ideas — it doesn’t seem like a vanity project or a play for control. The most cynical view is that it is beneficial to the OP because it provides access to potential investments, which, sure, isn’t a pure philanthropic venture, but that seems a pretty small price to pay. The people involved are the people you would surely want running this project.
What government programs in the US are stably funding open-source developers? I think most government-funded open source projects are very gunshy about looking for new funding because of the Trump administration completely politicizing grants and funding. I would not want to have to sign an anti-BDS pledge to get my open source project funded, and I would imagine that goes for many people in the community. Also, what "dismissive comments" are you referring to? The only one I saw was "Government support won't work for OSS at scale — it's too globally decentralized". Which is a fair criticism—open source projects are incredibly globalized, and getting e.g. New York State to fund an open source project that has contributors from Ukraine, India and China is a headache I don't think anyone would want to try and go through. There's just no benefit to the state administrators to fund that kind of project—they want to support parochial, home-grown projects with local ties.
Germany is making it work† but seems quite far off to say the least in the US. "Voluntary tax" like this is provocative in its own right, will be interesting to see what gets unlocked more broadly if this succeeds.
Just for the love of all things, do not let this become like Wikipedia or Mozilla. The moment you start paying for irrelevant things, you lose donors current and in the future. Nothing more frustrating than those two orgs in terms of where they spend their donor funds.
It is great to see that governments are also funding open source, but I don't think it is sustainable and scalable because:
1) In every country, most politicians and citizens have no clue about the problem we are discussing here. Thus OSS won't have a meaningful share in the gov budget.
2) If an OSS-advanced country funds open source now (like Germany - kudos to them!), it might easily change later with a new administration (like the support of nuclear plants in Germany).
3) If a very stable OSS-advanced country perpetually support open source, that creates a freerider problem - nowadays it seems that German taxpayers are supporting OSS, but others do not and unlikely will.
Meanwhile, private funding is sustainable (endowment model) and scalable because of aligned incentives — people voluntarily join, not taxed.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.70
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
High Advocacy Practice
Editorial
+0.70
SETL
0.00
The content directly addresses the problem of unpaid labor in open source and advocates for fair, sustainable compensation through the endowment model.
Observable Facts
The site states 'Our world runs on open source software that is mostly built and maintained by unpaid volunteers.'
It identifies 'Maintainer burnout and lack of funding' as a critical problem, and commits to 'sustainably fund the most critical OSS projects' and 'OSS maintainers.'
The problem statement emphasizes 'the huge and unfair imbalance between the value open source creates and its sustainability.'
Inferences
The endowment directly addresses the systemic exploitation of unpaid labor in open source, supporting workers' economic rights.
The focus on sustainable funding implicitly supports the right to fair compensation and just working conditions.
+0.70
Article 27Cultural Participation
High Advocacy Practice
Editorial
+0.70
SETL
+0.26
Open source software is fundamentally about sharing scientific and technical knowledge globally. The content advocates strongly for sustaining this practice.
Observable Facts
The site describes supporting 'critical open source software,' which constitutes shared scientific and technical knowledge.
The content frames OSS as underpinning 'the critical infrastructure of the global tech ecosystem.'
Inferences
Open source software is a primary mechanism for global sharing of scientific and technical advancement.
The endowment sustains the systems through which humanity collectively builds and shares knowledge.
+0.50
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
+0.22
Open source software is fundamentally a medium for free expression and code sharing. The content advocates for supporting OSS creators and sustaining this infrastructure.
Observable Facts
The site promotes funding for 'open source software' and describes supporting 'open source creators, founders, executives, and investors.'
The content frames supporting 'open source alumni' as the foundation's core constituency.
Inferences
Open source software is inherently a mechanism for free expression and knowledge sharing.
The endowment's support sustains the economic and technical infrastructure through which global free expression in code occurs.
+0.50
Article 20Assembly & Association
High Advocacy Practice
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
0.00
The content explicitly emphasizes community participation and collective action in addressing OSS sustainability.
Observable Facts
The site states 'Everybody is welcome — join them today!' and describes a 'community-driven endowment.'
It specifies 'People donating $1K+ become OSE Members, who help govern the Endowment.'
Inferences
The open membership model and language of inclusion directly enable freedom of association.
The structure allows people to form collective associations around shared values in OSS sustainability.
+0.50
Article 21Political Participation
High Advocacy Practice
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
0.00
The content advocates for community governance and democratic participation in endowment decision-making.
Observable Facts
The site states the model is 'co-developed with the Endowment's Members and the open source community.'
It emphasizes 'Empowers the community to shape key strategic decisions.'
Inferences
The participatory governance model directly implements democratic participation in organizational decisions.
The commitment to 'Inclusive & Diverse Governance' ensures multiple voices in strategic decisions.
+0.50
Article 28Social & International Order
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
+0.16
The content explicitly addresses creating a sustainable international order for open source through global cooperation and stable institutions.
Observable Facts
The site states 'Global Outlook' and commits to supporting 'the long-term health of the global open source supply chain.'
The organization is described as serving 'Global' areaServed with 'international order' implications for tech infrastructure.
Inferences
The explicit focus on global supply chain health and international cooperation supports the right to an international order promoting human welfare.
The model treats OSS as a global commons requiring international cooperation for sustainability.
+0.40
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
+0.20
The content connects critical software infrastructure to public health and welfare, arguing for its sustainable support.
Observable Facts
The site states '>95% software depends on OSS' and '500+ OSS dependencies in an average app.'
It lists security incidents (Log4Shell, XZ Utils, Heartbleed) affecting critical infrastructure that health and financial systems depend on.
Inferences
Supporting critical software infrastructure indirectly supports health and welfare systems that depend on its stability.
The focus on preventing security failures in OSS relates to public health and economic welfare.
+0.40
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
+0.14
The content frames OSS sustainability as a collective responsibility and shared duty of the technology community.
Observable Facts
The site's title is 'Solving Open Source Sustainability Together,' emphasizing collective action and shared responsibility.
The framing throughout presents OSS sustainability as 'a global challenge' requiring community participation.
Inferences
The collective framing of OSS sustainability implies recognition of community duties toward critical infrastructure.
The model embodies the principle that beneficiaries of shared resources have duties to sustain them.
+0.30
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.21
The content discusses preventing security incidents in critical infrastructure that could affect human life and safety globally.
Observable Facts
The content states '>95% software depends on OSS' and lists critical security incidents: 'Log4Shell, the XZ Utils backdoor, and Heartbleed.'
It warns that 'Maintainer burnout and lack of funding often lead to bugs and serious security incidents.'
Inferences
The connection between OSS infrastructure stability and global security directly relates to protection of human life.
The focus on preventing infrastructure vulnerabilities implies support for right to life through critical systems security.
+0.30
Article 22Social Security
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.12
The content frames OSS as critical social infrastructure and proposes systemic, stable funding to support it.
Observable Facts
The site describes providing 'a stable, long-term funding model, independent of volatile corporate and personal budgets.'
It frames OSS as 'critical infrastructure of the global tech ecosystem.'
Inferences
The endowment model provides systematic, stable support for critical infrastructure, analogous to social security approaches.
Supporting infrastructure on which social and economic systems depend relates to social security principles.
+0.20
PreamblePreamble
Medium Practice
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
0.00
Content does not explicitly reference human dignity or inalienable rights, but implicitly addresses human welfare through focus on preventing critical infrastructure failure and supporting human labor.
Observable Facts
The site identifies critical infrastructure failures and maintainer burnout as leading to 'bugs and serious security incidents, as seen with Log4Shell, the XZ Utils backdoor, and Heartbleed.'
The organization describes itself as 'US 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity' with 'Maximum Transparency' and 'clear accountability in all funding decisions and operations.'
Inferences
The focus on preventing infrastructure failures that affect public safety implies concern for human welfare and dignity.
The nonprofit structure with transparency commitments suggests institutional commitment to human rights principles.
+0.20
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Low
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.10
The content indirectly addresses rest through mention of addressing maintainer burnout.
Observable Facts
The site identifies 'Maintainer burnout' as a problem the endowment addresses through sustainable funding.
Inferences
Addressing burnout through stable funding indirectly supports the right to reasonable work hours and periods of rest.
+0.20
Article 26Education
Low
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
0.00
The emphasis on transparency and open data has educational value, though not explicitly focused on education rights.
Observable Facts
The site emphasizes 'open data, public governance processes, and clear accountability in all funding decisions and operations.'
Inferences
The commitment to transparency and open information access supports broader educational and knowledge-sharing principles.
+0.10
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Medium
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
-0.19
Language about inclusion and diversity implicitly supports non-discrimination, though not explicitly stated.
Observable Facts
The site explicitly lists 'Inclusive & Diverse Governance' and 'Empowers the community to shape key strategic decisions' as core principles.
Inferences
The explicit governance model focused on diverse representation and inclusion implies commitment to non-discriminatory decision-making.
+0.10
Article 7Equality Before Law
Low
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
-0.19
The emphasis on transparency and accountability relates to fair treatment in formal processes.
Observable Facts
The site emphasizes 'Maximum Transparency' and 'clear accountability in all funding decisions and operations.'
Inferences
The stated transparency and accountability commitments suggest institutional fairness in applying governance rules.
+0.10
Article 17Property
Low
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
-0.09
The endowment model preserves and distributes pooled resources, relating to property rights principles.
Observable Facts
The site describes the endowment principal as 'preserved in perpetuity' with investment returns distributed for grants.
Inferences
The model respects property rights by preserving donated resources while using returns for social benefit.
0.00
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Low
Editorial
0.00
SETL
-0.20
No explicit discussion of equal rights or inherent dignity.
Observable Facts
The site states 'Inclusive & Diverse Governance' as a core principle with focus on 'individuals over companies.'
Inferences
The governance model's emphasis on individual participation over corporate dominance implies commitment to equal treatment.
-0.15
Article 12Privacy
Low
Editorial
-0.15
SETL
+0.10
No explicit privacy advocacy observed.
Observable Facts
The page includes 'window.op' analytics initialization configured to track screen views, attributes, and outgoing links.
Inferences
The unaccompanied analytics tracking without visible privacy policy suggests inadequate transparency about data collection, potentially conflicting with privacy rights.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No relevant content.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No relevant content.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No relevant content.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
No relevant content.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No relevant content.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No relevant content.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
No relevant content.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
No relevant content.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No relevant content.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No relevant content.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
No relevant content.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
No relevant content.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
No relevant content directly addressing preservation of UDHR rights.
Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.70
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
High Advocacy Practice
Structural
+0.70
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
The entire endowment structure exists to solve the problem of underfunded and unpaid labor in open source maintenance.
+0.60
Article 27Cultural Participation
High Advocacy Practice
Structural
+0.60
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.26
The endowment provides structural support for the technical infrastructure enabling global knowledge sharing.
+0.50
Article 20Assembly & Association
High Advocacy Practice
Structural
+0.50
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
The governance structure enables freedom of association through open membership and collective participation in decision-making.
+0.50
Article 21Political Participation
High Advocacy Practice
Structural
+0.50
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
The governance model implements democratic participation through member voting and community input on grantmaking.
+0.45
Article 28Social & International Order
High Advocacy Framing
Structural
+0.45
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.16
The global nonprofit structure and explicit 'Global Outlook' support international coordination for human welfare.
+0.40
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy
Structural
+0.40
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.22
The endowment provides structural support for the technical and economic infrastructure enabling free expression through code.
+0.35
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.35
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.14
The community-driven governance model embodies recognition of shared duties and collective responsibility.
+0.30
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.30
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20
The endowment supports the stable functioning of infrastructure on which health and welfare systems depend.
+0.25
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Medium
Structural
+0.25
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
-0.19
Governance structure emphasizing 'Inclusive & Diverse Governance' suggests institutional non-discrimination.
+0.25
Article 7Equality Before Law
Low
Structural
+0.25
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
-0.19
The governance model's transparency commitments suggest fairness in applying organizational rules.
+0.25
Article 22Social Security
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.25
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.12
The endowment model provides structural support for sustainable, long-term funding of critical infrastructure.
+0.20
PreamblePreamble
Medium Practice
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
The 501(c)(3) nonprofit structure with stated commitments to transparency and accountability reflects institutional recognition of human rights principles.
+0.20
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Low
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
-0.20
The stated 'Inclusive & Diverse Governance' with focus on 'individuals over companies' suggests commitment to equal participation in decision-making.
+0.20
Article 26Education
Low
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
The commitment to 'open data, public governance processes' supports educational access principles.
+0.15
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.15
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.21
The endowment aims structurally to prevent infrastructure failures that could endanger public welfare.
+0.15
Article 17Property
Low
Structural
+0.15
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
-0.09
The structure of preserving principal 'in perpetuity' reflects respect for property rights and resource stewardship.
+0.15
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Low
Structural
+0.15
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.10
The endowment aims to reduce burnout by providing sustainable funding, implicitly supporting better work conditions.
-0.20
Article 12Privacy
Low
Structural
-0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.10
The site includes analytics tracking (window.op) without visible privacy policy on homepage, creating potential privacy concerns.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No relevant content.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No relevant content.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No relevant content.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
No relevant content.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No relevant content.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No relevant content.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
No relevant content.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
No relevant content.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No relevant content.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No relevant content.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
No relevant content.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
No relevant content.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
No relevant content.
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.57
Propaganda Flags
3techniques detected
appeal to authority
Multiple founder and executive testimonials: 'Mitchell Hashimoto Co-founder, HashiCorp,' 'Chad Whitacre Head of Open Source, Sentry,' establishing credibility through named authority figures.
bandwagon
Large donor list (61 total donors, 44 members) and testimonials create social proof of widespread support from tech leaders.
causal oversimplification
Statement 'Maintainer burnout and lack of funding often lead to bugs and serious security incidents' — causal relationship implied but not fully evidenced.
Solution Orientation
No data
Emotional Tone
No data
Stakeholder Voice
No data
Temporal Framing
No data
Geographic Scope
No data
Complexity
No data
Transparency
No data
Event Timeline
20 events
2026-02-26 20:01
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers
--
2026-02-26 20:01
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers
--
2026-02-26 20:01
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 20:01
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:59
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:59
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers
--
2026-02-26 19:59
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:59
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:58
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:57
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:56
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers
--
2026-02-26 19:54
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:53
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:51
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 18:43
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers
--
2026-02-26 18:41
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers
--
2026-02-26 18:41
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers
--
2026-02-26 18:41
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers
--
2026-02-26 18:40
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers
--
2026-02-26 18:39
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers