A New Year's Idea: Pay For Some Freedom

It's not a contradiction: Free software costs money. (That's because server space, bandwidth, coffee, electricity, computers, and workspace all cost money.) Besides which, the time it takes to code new window managers, programming libraries (and languages), web browsers, and all the other goodies which make a modern computer useful may be spent as a labor of love, but it's time that competes with real-world jobs, family time, vacations in the Riviera and sleep. Besides the relative few who work at work on their Free software projects, the programmers, project managers, web-site maintainers, documentation jockeys and QA volunteers behind the programs we enjoy every day don't seem to be in it for the money, so much as the thrill of releasing new software, a desire to make their own world a little better, and for plain old fun. The staffers and volunteers who put long hours and dedication into organizations trying to safeguard online freedoms are also obviously interested in rewards that go way beyond salaries. This New Year's, consider giving them a little money anyhow. Here are a few ideas; you're invited to point out projects and organizations that I've left out.

As you may have read the other day, the FreeBSD project is now taking donations via PayPal. And if you're in a clean, roots-UNIX kind of mood, the folks at OpenBSD and NetBSD (NetBSD PayPal) would probably also appreciate your goodwill, not to mention your money, hardware and time.

If you don't have a specific project in mind, but would like to donate some of your chunk of the time-money continuum to a worthy software undertaking, a good place to start is Software in the Public Interest. They can take both general donations as well as earmark for projects they support, like Berlin, Debian, GNOME and more. (Not into GNOME? KDE could use some assistance, including money, too.)

If you like the projects funded by the boxed-distribution makers (like paying for full-time work on endeavors like KOffice), you can do more than buy the box: Mandrake has recently formed something called the Mandrake Club as a gathering place for both people and funds.

To encourage (and reward) cross-platform goodness, supporting the Mozilla project is hard to beat. (This story was posted using a 9.7 build using the wonderful Modern theme.) Source of Mozilla wisdom Mozillazine could use some help paying for the switch to a new host, and to defray ongoing costs. Another good place to cast your perls is Yet Another Foundation, which supports the somewhat scrutable development of the not-so-scrutable Perl.

More generally, consider investing some money in organizations like the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC), all of which help battle (in court and in the marketplace of ideas) the forces who wish to monitor and otherwise exert top-down control of your computer and everything to do with your on-line life.

Remember, with all of these projects, non-monetary contributions are welcomed as well -- if you can write or correct some online documentation, create test-cases to root out weaknesses, or create some pretty graphics to smooth the user experience, you can contribute. (Long-distance pizza deliveries to developers are also generally appreciated.) Teaching a coworker, classmate, parent or friend how to set up mailfilters on a Linux box, or how to edit photos in the GIMP, is a nice way to save them money, too. Making a difference locally might also mean contributing some time, money or hardware to help run local LUG events.

Note: Many of the organizations named above are set up as 501(c) charities; if you'd like to claim any charitable contributions as tax deductions, now's the time to get the postmark, at least if it's important to you for those donations to be on the current calendar year. For a few more ideas on ways to donate geekily this year, see Jack Bryar's Newsforge column with some more links.

And a Happy New Year's!

Comments

Microsoft (& others) have this all figured out

[cscx]

It's called "pay for our software so we can pay the programmers..." I hear it works well. For example, Microsoft is not a "cubicle" company... everyone gets an office with a door. Companies can afford to give their workers rooms to "play" in on their breaks, too. But I guess that's the difference between paid workers and volunteers. Life's a sad story, isn't it?

Free ways of helping...

[hexxx]

Free ways of helping are many much better than just £$ ways. Many small and new project need testers and especially _FEEDBACK_. If you have an idea that would make the little software project better, share it with thedevelopers. If you find a bug, make sure that you report it. If you think the programs great, tell that to the developer. I mean many projects die, because the developer thinks that the project isn't important. And if you really are feeling like helping, you could do graphics, sounds or programming. Everybody can help out in this effort.

Buy a box set

[Codeala]

I think one of the best and easiest way to support Free Software is to buy a box set (or "retail version" if you like) of your favourite Free Software (distros, apps, games).

Sure you can download an iso and burn as many copies as you like, and sure you "don't need no stinking manual". But by buying retail version you are saying directly to the developers, publishers and retailers that you use their software and like it enough to buy a copy. (And you can write it off as business software purchases when you file your tax ;-)

Plus your box set is great for lending out to friends & newbies (much more impressive than your blank CD-R). Or put it beside your computer at work (and let anyone borrow it), to subtly promote Free Software without being an anti-M$ nazis about it.

Re:Buy a box set

[John_Booty]

But by buying retail version you are saying directly to the developers, publishers and retailers that you use their software and like it enough to buy a copy

You make a lot of good points, and what you're saying has merit, but I think you need to think about this point. When you buy a boxed version of Mandrake (for example) for $60, Mandrake only sees a tiny portion of that money. Lots of it goes to the retailer and the distributors and the publisher. I'd be suprised if Mandrake saw more than $10 out of the $60, if even that (can someone more knowledgeable about the biz give an accurate figure?). So, Mandrake would make a lot more money if you just PayPal'ed them the $60 and downloaded the ISO, which is essentially pure profit for them (aside from a few cents' worth of bandwidth).

Then again, you did make some other good points for boxed retail versions. Additionally, seeing Linux software taking up retail space legitimizes it in many people's minds... I just wanted to point out how little of the retail cost of a piece of software actually goes to the developer!

If you belong to EFF

[r_j_prahad]

I just got a direct mailing from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asking for special holiday donations. For a gift of $50US or more, they'll throw in a T-Shirt with their new logo. I couldn't find the offer on their website, so I suppose it's limited to members. Anyway, I need a different outfit for work; the boss gets visibly upset whenever I wear my Computerworld "Shark Tank" T-shirt.

So the EFF will be getting my fifty bucks, because I figure if free software gets made illegal, there won't be anybody left for the rest of you to donate to.

Re:Open Source Business Model (-1 Rambling)

[plover]

Every business model requires income, otherwise it's simply a charity by another name. And the software we're all talking about here is most emphatically not for sale.

I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this, but there really is no economic reason for the success of any Open Source venture. There is no business model that will derive financial income from a product that cannot be sold. The true "success" comes from all people benefiting from the efforts of the few authors. Those authors benefit, too, of course, but only in the same "free (beer)" sense. Why should any give-away scheme (especially one as strongly held as the GPL) be able to make money?

Sure, Cygwin, RedHat, et al, have been making a go of it selling the side-stuff (support, servers, etc.) that some people want. And the GPL very explicitly permits charging for the physical distribution of the code. I think we may see companies such as these moving into the "selling distribution" model. And that's not evil, it's just the reality that this article mentions.

But then what are people willing to pay for a distro server? I just freshened some Cygwin stuff on my box here, and they gave me a list of servers to try. It did take a couple of tries to find a site willing to serve this stuff up. I can't say as I'd want the entire customer base of Cygwin knocking at my ports looking for 20MB each, either.

So, donations seem to be about the only way to make things run until someone sets up a paid-for-distro company. And even a distro company will have to "compete" with anyone offering to serve it up for free!

John

Trying hard to understand this

[gwernol]

Of course it costs money to develop and distribute software. Its good to see an Slashdot article highlighting this.

But more intriguing is the suggested solution. So there are various funds I can contribute to that will renumerate some or all of the people working on free software. That's interesting but surely it has a fatal flaw.

By pooling donations to be split amongst projects you are diminishing a lot of the power of your money. When I pay for a software package I am saying that I want this software package, not one of the many alternatives I could have bought. The one I chose may have features I want, it may have a better UI for me, it may be more reliable, it may be more compatible.

I vote with my money and that gives me a small but significant voice in which software gets the resources to continue to grow.

I don't want to give up this power. Software should conform to my needs as the end user. The market mechanism is an extremely good way for me to express my needs in a way that the software developers will take seriously.

This is a Good Thing [tm].

Why circumvent the market principle? Why disenfranchise users in this way?

Yes, I am advocating selling software to cover its cost of development, distribution and continued production. You know, like we've always done for software and pretty much all other goods and services. Yay for selling good software for a fair price.

Re:Trying hard to understand this

[wfrp01]

Yay for selling good software for a fair price.

I think everybody agrees with this. The disagreement revolves around what should be considered "fair". Is it fair to 'license' software to users, thereby depriving them of rights that consumers who purchase other products expect to have? Is it fair for monopolists to leverage their power to screw consumers into perpetually upgrading to maintain compatibility with the rest of the world? Is it fair for the U.S. Patent Office to pick winners and losers in the marketplace? Is it fair that de-facto proprietary standards compell people to use software with serious security flaws and innumerable other defects? Defects that they cannot fix themselves.

I agree with your sentiments completely, but I think the marketplace you refer to is badly broken. The competitive marketplace for software that you speak of exists, but not where you think it does.

There's no irony to speak of selling free software. The irony is that people are willing subsidize multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations to temporarily acquire limited rights to software that sucks.

Re:Amazon donations?

[plover]

Hey, 2.5% + $0.30 is CHEAP for transaction processing. I bet about a quarter of that fee ends up going to Visa, too.

And, I mostly trust Yahoo with that info already. More so than PayPal.

John

Re:Don't forget to read before posting!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell is Michael?

We need a new system

[infiniti99]

There is no reason free software developers shouldn't get paid. The problem is that we have no system in place to conduct the process.

Imagine, for instance, if instead of all these companies paying billions to Microsoft for Office, if just a few million was spent paying free software developers to make a comparable product instead. I would be willing to bet that the resulting product from the free software developers would be of better quality, despite the huge difference in the amount of money involved. The moral of the story? Free software developers could work just like normal programmers (high salaries and all), and develop public works for all to enjoy. There is no reason we shouldn't get paid.

Donations are a good first step, but it should not end there. I want big fat office buildings full of free software developers, maybe publically government funded (like the Artists and Painters of yore), or perhaps kick-started by a company with money. The money needs to come first, then the product. That's the only way it would work and make sense.

My perfect world:
- company A needs a product, so they contact the FSF or something.
- FSF solicits the concept to other companies that might be interested (company A could do this also, petition-style)
- All the companies pitch in money (up front) to the FSF to have the software developed.
- The finished product is put in a museum, where all can make copies.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no downside to this system, other than that the older companies selling software will get the shaft.

Another problem you might think of is that you have to wait for the software to be developed. This is no different than the current system in place. My hope is that this proposed system would be used for all software in the future, not just as counter-projects to MS software (would still be worthwhile though).

Re:We need a new system

[wfrp01]

There is no reason free software developers shouldn't get paid. The problem is that we have no system in place to conduct the process.

Umm, all of those links you see in the article are to locations that inform you how to make financial contributions to support various projects. So there is a system in place. Maybe it doesn't work as well as people would like, but it certainly exists.

What we don't have is a system to compell the process. That's a good thing.

Re:Open Source Business Model

[protonman]

Couldn't this all be avoided by a good open source business model? Isn't that what we're really looking for here? I don't think a software company can run completely funded by donations.

When will people realise OpenSource isn't about companies? It's about people who like to be in control of their own hardware, who just like to code, etc, etc... you've all heard why Linus did what he did!

OpenSource doesn't *need* a business model, because it isn't business :-)

Re:Open Source Business Model

[benedict]

Open source software generally *is* funded by
donations -- of time. Most open source
software isn't run by a company, it's run by a
community. Donating money is just a different
way of participating in those communities.

The best way to help.

[Hiro Antagonist]

I believe that the best way to help your favorite open-source project is to get involved. I can think of countless times that I've heard people whine, moan, and complain about the fact that the open-source application $FOO doesn't have feature $BAR; but the person who wants $BAR isn't willing to either code it or pay someone to.

Free software isn't about getting something for free; it's about the freedom to modify programs to do what you want them to do, not what some arbitrary programmer in a distant company wants you to do. It's about freedom -- not about saving money (although that does appear to be a fringe benefit).

Even if you don't code, chances are you can get someone involved in the project to write something for you by taking care of something they need. Documentation is the first thing that comes to mind; many open-source projects are sadly lacking in this department, and a well-written manual is worth a mountain of coder time. You can also help to provide server space and/or bandwitdh for the project, or to donate hardware for the coders-in-question to use.

The point is that free software is a community effort; and if you aren't willing to be an equal participant of that community, you really don't have much of a say.

Re:The best way to help.

[jajuka]

So are you saying you think giving money is worthless? Some people can spare money more easily than time, should they just forget it and go on about their business? Are those whose talents and time are directed elsewhere unworthy of free software somehow?

You know some people would consider users making bug reports and feature requests to be participating and helping out. (Though of course not all of them have the sense to be respectful and appreciative when doing so.)

Yeah, there are people who whine and bitch and think everything should be handed to them on a silver plater. I'm sure most of them don't confine their whining to matters of software, free or otherwise.

Statements like yours, while I don't expect it was your intention make it sound like input of any kind from non programmers is unwelcome.

blah blah whatever...

[anthony_dipierro]

That's because server space, bandwidth, coffee, electricity, computers, and workspace all cost money.

I seriously doubt these programmers don't already have a computer and workspace. Server space, bandwidth, and electricity are free thanks to sourceforge.

If the work you do benefits others more than the alternatives, there is a way to make money doing that work. Find that way, and you can quit begging others for money.

Re:As a software engineer...

[sigwinch]

That way, not only am I getting my markets shrunk by 'free' alternatives, but I'm also giving away what I *can* make to the people who are making my life more difficult.

This is so wrong, for several reasons:

1. Software is not a zero-sum game. New software tends to increase the demand for new software. E.g., a cheap, good image editor would increase the demand for archiving and indexing software. The free software community in particular is most skilled at creating infrastructure and libraries that enable new applications. E.g., Linux + Apache + Perl + PostgresQL == the huge market for corporate web apps that did not exist 10 years ago.

2. If it was a zero-sum game, some people will be less able to adapt to the new market. Assuming you are clever and adaptable, free software would hurt your competitors more than it hurts you. Conversely, stupidity and inflexibility are not grounds for complaint.

After all, if they supposedly don't need to make any money from their work, they surely don't need any money to live on, right?

Free software == not tying people's hands using copyright law.

Free software != not needing any money.

Re:a better place to put it..

[dosun88888]

So you'd rather finance unskilled people who don't do anything (for whatever reason) than finance skilled people who benefit you by their actions?

It's a donation, and if I had income in excess of my other donations (to family and friends getting nailed by the economy) I'd much rather give it to a badass coder who's probably better than I am at what I get paid for, whose software I use, than to someone who does absolutely nothing that benefits anyone.

I'll get nailed for this one, I know, but I'm not a pot smoking hippie like the rest of california, or a lot of the /. community.

Re:charity

[Anonymous Coward]

It usually isn't difficult to find the names and contact info of the actual programmers on open source projects, so it wouldn't be that hard to send money directly to them and bypass the parent organization.

Of course, the parent organzation is more often than not key to the survival of the product, and ought to be supported.

A way to help developpers...

[chrysalis]

Most projects are developped on spare time, not during the daily work time. Even if your free software projects are used by the company you are working for, pointy hair bosses won't let you improve it as a part of your regular job. They just enjoy their network works with cheap software. They enjoy to have the app developper in their employees because they know who will be the responsible if the software goes wrong with that app.

If you want to help developpers, write to the company they are working for and tell that you enjoy the software. PHBs will be happy ("ah? some potential customer? He heard about us in a tiny piece of software that one of our employees is working on, on his spare time?) and maybe they will allow the developper to spend some time on the project during the regular job time...

The developper will be paid for his work, the PHB will be happy and users will get new versions of the product...

Really, as a developper, being granted to work on free software on my daily job time would be a dream. Right now, coding is only possible after 11pm and before 8am ... The boss wants me to add specific stuff to a free software project, even demanding deadlines, but he does want this to be done only at home, on spare time ("developping free software is a game for teenagers, let them play but we don't pay them for that. We pay them to make profit from free software, not to help it.") . I'm sure this situation is very, very, veyr common.

Gimp & other Adobe competition

[mlinksva]

Adobe still needs to be punished for instigating the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov. He's now free, but Adobe never paid his legal costs and still supports the vile DMCA. Is there any way to support Gimp development financially? Are there other free software applications looking for financial support that offer viable alternatives to Adobe's core revenue-generating applications?

Re:Gimp & other Adobe competition

[hughk]

To quote an earlier post, you don't have to give cash, but help is always nice.

What would really put the Gimp into the same leagues as certain commercial programs (and undoubtedly, upset the companies concerned) is full CMYK support (with traps). This would allow the Gimp to replace said commercial programs.

The current version has converters but that isn't enough.

Money collection is not the problem...Focus is.

[DangerTenor]

Just a rough count, there were like 13 different apps/projects/foundations in the /. post. And those are just the ones that were directly called out! This makeshift group of many small projects and organizations betrays the disorganization that is omnipresent in open source and free software development efforts. I have paid for free software, registered my shareware, made micropayments to developers, and submitted changes and bugfixes to open source software. The thing that strikes me is that we don't need a better way to pay all these organizations; we need a better way to organize!

IMHO if there were a strategy developed by a few people or even a few groups that looked at a global view--these are the software needs of our society, and we will develop A, B, and C because there are no (free / alternate) products currently available to meet these needs--it would show that at least there is some looking ahead. Instead we have a bunch of different organizations, pushing many different flavors of the same operating system, two entirely different windowing / gui systems, two different wordprocessor / spreadsheet / presentation solutions, and countless other efforts, some with narrow focus and others that seem to repeat what's already been tried because for some reason the new developer thinks they have a better idea / approach / design / open source licensing model.

It seems to me that we are hunting elephants with buckshot. One concentrated rifle shot between the eyes will take down the big guys, but buckshot will only make them angry!

Until such a group is formed to help organize and focus the efforts of open source / free software development, we will still have a bunch of small disorganized companies wanting money, a bunch of very talented people programming in their spare time better code than what Microsofties get paid quite well for, and a few behemoth companies setting the direction of the computing world as a whole, and making a ton of money to boot.

You miss the point: Greed

[Srin Tuar]

We "donate" money/resources/time/etc not because we want to thank or subsidize free software developers for code they have arleady written. No, the reason is instead that we are greedy for new free software, with more delicious features.

So this really has little to do with charity- its capitalism. And its even more pure than than monetary capitalism- we trade value for value with no intermediary.