fshy

Home / GitHub

GitHub Secure Open

github.com/open-source/github-secure-open-source-fundCloud VMcompute/github-secure-openJSONcomparereport an errorprovider JSON

Free allowance
Quoted from the programme page: 'It is $10,000 per project.
Verdict
caveatusable, with a named limit or an unprobed read path
Cost
free tier
Identity
emailno card, no phone
Binding limit
write-gatedThe project must already be a maintained open-source project with demonstrated traction, and the USD 8,000 balance is conditional on two security check-ins at 6 and 12 months, so the money is spread over a year of work.
Evidence
documented4 sources; a first-party page was read and the sentence quoted
Freshness
stale on 2026-11-22checked 2026-10-22 (live); stale on 2026-11-22
Free tierQuoted from the programme page: 'It is $10,000 per project. All funding goes directly to the maintainers that are invited into the program. The funding is broken into tranches aligned to program schedules: $6,000 during program, $2,000 at 6 month check-in, and $2,000 at 12 month check-in.' The same page lists 'Cloud Credits: $10,000 in Azure credits. Eligible projects have potential to receive up to $150,000 in free Azure infrastructure credits from Microsoft for Startups.'
unit none; metered on wall-clock; cash-grant-plus-credits
Pricenone stated
Limits
  • write-gated (binding) The project must already be a maintained open-source project with demonstrated traction, and the USD 8,000 balance is conditional on two security check-ins at 6 and 12 months, so the money is spread over a year of work. source
Identityemail not published
Egressnot stated
Interfaceunknown inferred from the tooling the provider documents; not probed
Toolingnot stated
Reliabilityno reliability event recorded
NotesThe two first-party sources disagree on the cloud credit and the disagreement is the finding: the programme page prints 'Cloud Credits: $10,000 in Azure credits' with a conditional path to USD 150,000 through Microsoft for Startups, while a GitHub blog post describes session 4 as giving '$100K of Azure Credits'. A reader should confirm with the programme before planning around either. Seventy-one projects had already passed through the programme by one of the posts, which is a large cohort for a fund this small and is the reason to rank it high: the odds are not Alpha-Omega odds. Two conditions do real work: the maintainer must sit in a GitHub Sponsors-supported region, and the project needs visible traction.
Parsed numbers
  • has-free-tier 1
Evidence 4
datesourcewhat it proved
2026-10-22github.com/open-source/github-secure-open-source-fundquoted the USD 10,000 per project with the 6,000 / 2,000 / 2,000 tranche split, the Azure credit sentence 'Cloud Credits: $10,000 in Azure credits. Eligible projects have potential to receive up to $150,000 in free Azure infrastructure credits from Microsoft for Startups', and the eligibility list: 'Anyone who is a current maintainer of an open source project', 18 or older, active GitHub profile, 'Be located in one of the regions supported by GitHub Sponsors'
2026-10-22github.blog/security/supply-chain-security/investing-in-the-quoted 'Session 4 runs late April with each project receiving $10,000, Copilot Pro, $100K of Azure Credits, and 3 weeks of security education' and 'an additional $5.5 million in Azure credits and funding' [this figure conflicts with the $10,000 Azure credits printed on the programme page; see notes]
2026-10-22github.blog/open-source/maintainers/securing-the-supply-chaireported: 'each project receives $10,000 USD via GitHub Sponsors', a 3-week sprint inside a 12-month engagement, and that 71 projects had taken part by that post
2026-10-22opensource.org/blog/improving-open-source-security-with-the-third-party confirmation of the USD 10,000 per project figure and the three-week programme shape
More fields 1
facets{"class": "grant-individual","free_tier_kind": "cash-grant-plus-credits","shape": null}
Unknown values 7
  • egress metered: egress metering was not published
  • egress terms: a source was read and is silent on this field
  • interface: the access interface was not established
  • per object cap stated: the field does not apply to this kind of offer
  • reliability note: nothing of this kind was observed
  • retention stated: the field does not apply to this kind of offer
  • tooling: a source was read and is silent on this field