Rejecting Sponsorship

[JesusMcCloud]

Select Topic Area

Question

Body

We're evaluating GitHub Sponsors for additional funding for some of the OSS development we do but there is one issue preventing us from joining:

What if someone decides so sponsor our work, but we do not want to accept this sponsorship, as it would constitute a conflict of interest and/or severely undermine our integrity and negatively impact our reputation?

This is not a hypothetical issue, as lobbying is very much a thing and very much legal. For numerous topics, the stance of many entities who have a strong interest in it is very clear and their dedicated plans to shape public discourse and legislation about certain topics is also well known.
OSS development is only part of the work we do. We also offer consulting. The way I understand how GitHub Sponsors works presents a major problem for anyone fearing a conflict of interest, because it is impossible to decline the first payment of a sponsor and end the sponsorship unilaterally BEFORE money is wired.
From what I gathered, the only thing possible is to remove a sponsor AFTER the first payment. Hence the following scenario is unavoidable and even more critical if you are in a position where you absolutely must be impartial (e.g. you are consulting the government:

1. Some entity has a lobbying incentive about a topic you work on.
2. This entity knows you’re consulting the public sector on this topic and does very much not agree with your outspoken stance on this topic.
3. This entity starts sponsoring your work with a lofty initial payment and publicly associates themself with that sponsorship.
4. Your get notified about this new sponsor and notice a conflict of interest.
5. You cannot reject this payment.
6. The entity anonymously notifies the press and/or some of your clients about your consulting contract on that topic and the obvious conflict of interest due to the payment you received. In effect, a perfectly legal form of bribery is insinuated.
7. Bad press on (at least) the government’s end and a long-lasting loss of credibility and reputation on your end ensures.

From everything I found (holding period, billing cycle, “no refunds”-policy, and multiple discussion with the copilot instance dedicated to GitHub support), I would conclude that such a hypothetical (but very much legal) plan will always be possible, because GitHub Sponsoring does not allow rejecting sponsorships altogether.

The FAQs put it in a way that suggests one will only get notified about new sponsors once they committed to a payment. Combined with GitHub's no-refunds policy, money will always be wired, even if it is forbidden fruit.
What am I missing here and where did I go wrong?

Also: you don't even have to go as far. Say, I let myself be sponsored, but I have also signed a non-compete clause and the first sponsor is a competitor of my current employer. What do I do?

[Chamath-Adithya]

You’ve raised a very valid and often overlooked point -GitHub Sponsors currently doesn’t have a built-in way to pre-approve or reject incoming sponsorships before payment is processed, which can indeed pose a problem for projects or individuals in sensitive positions (e.g., consulting, government contracts, or regulated industries).

Here’s what you can do in the current setup:

1. Manual Cancellation
   You can immediately remove or block a sponsor after the first payment. While this doesn’t stop the initial transaction, it does prevent any further renewals and publicly ends the relationship.

2. Add a Sponsorship Policy
   In your README.md or FUNDING.yml, include a clear “Sponsorship Policy” section stating that:

“We reserve the right to decline or refund sponsorships that may pose a conflict of interest, ethical concern, or reputational risk.”

This makes your stance transparent, helping to deter malicious or conflict-driven sponsorship attempts.

3. Refund via Direct Reversal
   While GitHub’s no-refund policy prevents automated refunds, you can contact GitHub Support directly to request a refund in conflict-of-interest situations. If you clearly explain the reason (e.g., lobbying risk or ethical compliance), they may be able to reverse or handle it manually.

4. Feature Suggestion
   It would make sense for GitHub to offer an optional “pre-approval workflow” — for example, allowing sponsors to appear in a “pending” list until the maintainer explicitly accepts or rejects them. This would solve the ethical and compliance issue entirely.

In short, you didn’t go wrong -your understanding of the current system is accurate. The only workaround for now is transparency and post-payment cancellation. Hopefully, GitHub will introduce more granular control for sponsorship acceptance in the future.