Slashdot Mirror
Software For Ransom
rbp writes "I just received a message from Adam Theo on the Jabber Developers Mailing List about what he calls "The Ransom Model" for software publishing. The principle, according to the above linked site, is that the "rights to the source code remain restricted until a set amount of money is collected or a set date passes, at which point the code is freed". Seems like a very interesting way to make money and produce free software. I think it's worth discussion. Take a look at the Ransom Model webpage and join the Ransom mailing list! (You might also be interested in recent news about Blender)"
Reader Apreche adds a link to a Freshmeat editorial piece which draws on Theo's idea, writing "This has some obvious problems, but it is worth discussing. The biggest problem I see is where vaporware fits into the equation."
i've got the money. please just don't hurt her!
oh, sorry, thought you were someone else.
/usr/bin/awake/too/long
They could atleast pick a word that doesn't carry so many negative associations if they wish for people to discuss it openly and fairly.
Anyway, a third party should step up to act as a broker and hold the money until the software is ready. It'll help protect both sides.
Writing open source software severely damages programmer jobs in the long term.
I'm gonna blow away the code!"
"No, man. You do *not* want to take this to the next level..."
Rights to the source code remain restricted until a set amount of money is collected or a set date passes, at which point the code is freed.
What happened to the "more eyes = better code" paradigm that so many Slashdotters and Open-/Free- Source gurus so frequently praise.
Listen, people -- if these new, deviant "random" coders start projects with expiration ("freed code") dates of 10 years down the road, no one will ever learn, improve, or assist innovation in the realm of software engineering. We will simply end up with thousands of under-funded vapourware applications, which in turn will stifle innovation for years to come when one considers all that *could have* been produced in the same amount of time with a more reasonable development model, such as Microsoft's Shared Source or ESR's Open Source.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Yo, boss, we can make more money if we charge $50,000 for each user who wants the source code to windows.
Bill G.: I don't know...there's a lot of people out there who are seeing a lot of windows for free lately..
$cat
I'm surprised this hasn't been thought of before, it's reasonable solution to what I have always seen as one of the major holes in the open source movement. Beats nagware any day.
Brevity is the soul of wit
-- Polonius
The code/design that is reviewed and critiqued from the start is always better than the code that is the critiqued after the implementation. Again with the Ransome model, the design will not be as good as the opensource design model. http://docbook.sc-icc.org
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Now they won't have to cook books anymore. They'll make exactly the amount of money they said they would, no lies.
It's just that then they'll realize that they could have made more...
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
...managed code like Java and .NET (C# etc)
Just run the disassembler.
Is it better than no code? I'd say for some people, it is.
Coming form a perspective of people believing that software should be free, the ransom name seems apt. In contrast, I suppose Microsoft would be using the slavery model :).
As for a third party, is it really that important? I mean, they develop the software, you buy it. If at some point they don't make their commitment to release it to the world, then you just stop buying it from them. If you can't afford to take the risk of changing away from it later, then don't buy into ransom software.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The problem with this whole situation is this IMHO... first of all, this will cause people to (a) pirate what used to be free source anyways. (b) cause people like me to wait out the time limit so that i will always be two steps behind what is current unless we will fork out ca$h, (not bloody likely) (c) cause the free source community to stop doing it for the reason they started in the first place... Its a hobby, they enjoy it, and they want to make the computing world a better place. I am not trying to be flaimbait, but if i have to pay for *nux, or any software really, I would just stick with microsoft, due to the full featured compatibily and mainstream acceptance. Granted *nux is more robust, and far more efficient. Overall I am more inclined to do things by my pocketbook.
If you expect the ransom will be relatively "cheap", and they promise it to be ransomised in the future you may start using it now. And as many people use it, they have more and more incentive to increase the ransom.
At some point you may either find the ransom is not what you expected (and way off the hooks) or that you have been left locked into a 100% propietary solution and have a huge cost to move to another one. Also, the "other" solution may not be arround, because everyone was using this "good looking" ransom app.
unfinished: (adj.)
Or they can keep the money to help their bottom line, or have the CEO embezzle it. Corporations are not known to plant trees when they chop them down!
The problem that Ransom solves is that many open source developers work very hard on their software projects, and usually end up giving their work away, due to the nature of open source
That nature being what? A lot of OSS developers do it in their free time, of their own free will and with their own resources. In a perfect world, yeah they would get paid, but holding the code until they get paid? Doesn't seem like the best way to go about it. What if their code sucks? No one will use it and they won't get paid. What if it is a cool app? Still no guarantee they are gonna get paid. Why would I throw money in their direction, in the hopes that the code gets released? What if it never does? What if they never hit their magic number? Can I get a refund? The cool thing about OSS is that the cool apps seem to rise to the top, people become interested and contribute their free time, thus enhancing the project. Money Grubbing doesn't enter into it as much. Why would anyone help out on a project where the code may never get released? I say ransom blows.
If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
Alright, so what happens when you "donate" to one of these projects? You give money, and if enough other people think it's worth their money, you get the software. Doesn't this mean that unless you're willing to finance the project in whole, there's no guarantee that you'll ever see the software? While I can see a good number of people supporting ransomed software out of good will, I can't see it working as a real business model, as people generally want some reassurance that they'll receive that for which they've paid.
1: Write Code
2: ???
3: Profit!
Was this article posted for the sole purpose of having slashdotters shoot it down as a bad idea? Everyone seems to insist that all software should be free (speech, possibly beer) and anyone who thinks otherwise should be shot. Nobody in this crowd is going to agree with the article. Just look at the fucking title it was posted under on the front page: "Software For Ransom." It has a negative connotation, purposely done of course (like many Microsoft articles). On the flip side, I guess I have to give you guys some credit on posting a link to an article dealing with free software that many people won't agree with. Still, I wish you all would fucking die. Liberalist hippies. Go to hell.
Looks like more and more projects are capitalising on "free speech."
Personally, I have made lots of money selling and installing modified/original BSD software, and donated a considerable amount of that back to those projects.
The GPL prevents me from doing this, because I don't necessarily want to release the source code to the changes which I have invested in. And I certainly don't want to release my code under the GPL.
This 'ransom' thing prevents people like me from donating to the project at all. Ironic, really.
"[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
Wont this just cause most people to sit around and wait, people are getting more and more reluctant to spend money these days... the few that do pay will a) Not see the code for a heck of a long time b) End up paying all the money... for no good reason. And everyone else then takes advantage of them... seems like too much goodwill is required for this to work well.
puts ("Python r0cks\n");
Well I guess if there was lots of research done, to just design the application (eg. pharmaceutical/medical), than the ransome model will be useful for getting the money back. But for applications where very little research was involved, I don't think anybody would go for the ransome license model.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Folks, Ransom is when you kidnap someone against their will, and ask for money to return them. Kidnapping is a crime. And so is Terrorism, the worst possible crime our nation faces today.
Do you really want to support kidnappers and terrorists?
I suggest avoiding this "terror-ware" and sticking with the only quality source of software in this country: Microsoft Corporation.
If Microsoft wasn't the best, why do 97% of all new computer buyers choose Windows when they buy a new PC? And MS doesn't need to resort to underhanded terrorist methods to make the sale.
Free software is like marijuana: sure, it feels good a first, but think of the family that had to die so you could have it.
I hope you keep this in mind.
Forgive me if I'm being obtuse but... (I know it's a great way to start a post)
How does this affect me, a person who enjoys using Linux/Open Source applications, but have no need to modify them...I just install the binaries and run (yes, I do pay/support when asked)
Secondly, what's to stop some "evil corporation" from buying the rights to the software while it's still in the "Ransom" phase, and then "resetting" the expiry date, or the new Ransom amount?
Gangsta code brokers..
.c files now, half now, half later... thens ya gets the .h files and the configure script.. donts be trying anything funny eh Jimmy?"
"Ya see Jimmy, ya gets the
Heh..
-- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
don't Id software do this ... they released both the Quake 1 and Quake 2 source under the GPL when they had moved on to there next project. In an industry where 20 year old arcade and console games are still copyrighted and restricted from being played ("hey, where did all the MAME roms go??") it is makes a refreshing change to see a group of developers who are programmers first and business men second (and still manage to be richer than rich).
I agree, but I would imagine there is nothing stopping ransomeware code segements/functions or even full source files from being released along with the compiled copies, to be commented on in the open source way. Just as long as the entire source tree for the whole application in its release state isn't published until the economic threshold has been crossed. Then the cycle can start again for release 2...
In want of another way, I suppose the code could even be open source from the start, through alpha/beta stages, to allow comments and changes to be made from the community, then the source could be shut off for the final release, until the ransom is paid. This means the coder is still receiving the communities help, but is getting paid for compiling all the code and comments into one final release. He may then share the ransom among those in the community which helped with the project.
Anyone got any other thoughts on slightly different variations of the ransom/paid open source theme?
Would be to have the code open but have the 'threat' to shut down public access to the code and new releases on a certain date if a certain amount of money isn't raised.
Ideally this could be automated, ie the core developers could set how much they want a month and let it run itself.
In this case there is incentive for users to pay to keep the development open so that external contributors can help and so the software they use gets better faster.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Another way to think of proprietary use of copyright is as an improved "ransom model": early buyers get the software faster, and sellers get the money earlier (and more certainly), than in the basic ransom model. Everybody wins. We deal---theoretically---with the late buyers' losses by limiting term of copyright to the ransom date. In practice, that's difficult to guess, of course, and will also be different for each product. But every scheme has practical problems.
"This has some obvious problems, but it is worth discussing. The biggest problem I see is
where vaporware fits into the equation."
In this case, vaporware = "profit"
Given that you have marketed it correctly.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
So I develop 10 apps. If I'm lucky, two are big hits and cover losses on the other 8. So now you want me to give up revenue right when something finally gets popular. Sure....
It's "ransom", not "ransome". Not a spelling nazi troll, just an FYI as you made the same avoidable mistake three times in two posts.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
How would the individual be assured that the authors are faithfully reporting $ amounts received so the public would could truly know when the terms of the ransom had been met?
Perhaps an online escrow service or outside source? Although this would add a bit of overhead, it might be acceptable to all.
OK, Now announcing Billy The Mountain's Online Ransomed Software Service.
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
I think McKusick might have implemented soft updates for SUN using that model, releasing it under the BSD license.
Actually, it has been thought of before, in the form of the Street Performer Protocol. Granted, the SPP as written assumes that it's going to be applied to textual works, but it doesn't seem like a great leap to apply it to the programming world.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
This sounds just like the way Drug Patents are handled plus the idea of being able to free the product with enough cash.
Currently, afaik, drugs patents last for 10-15 years after which anyone can manufacture the drug with out the creators permission.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
1) Vaporware. Simple. If the product hasn't shipped, then don't donate. After all, the point is that the software exists now (either for free with a suggested donation or for a normal price) but the license is restrictive and the source is closed until the goal is met. People used Blender before it went open source. Now it is open source. If you are donating before a product even ships, then you take that risk.
2) Shifting release conditions. It seems to me that by paying for the software, you are entering into a contract with the copyright holder. They are licensing the product to you for a price and in return you get the right to use the product and the promise that when certain conditions are met, the product will be open source. If the conditions are changed, then the company has violated the terms of the license and the license holders should have a cause of action for a lawsuit for breach of contract. A reasonable settlement would be to make all the code open sourse at that point.
3) The name. Change it to GoalWare. The developers have a goal and the users have a goal. They work together as a team to reach it.
"Give me back my code!"
I wish there was some there was some way that I could be outside playing basketball, in the rain, and not get wet.
Yeah, this is a good idea, but then what is the point of it? The concept of free software is, to some extent, in place to ensure that there are a lot of people to regulate the software's quality. In this model, the large-scale support only comes into play once a lot of people are already running the buggy program.
...just like the way other developers release their code under an open-source licence after a set time, only that they're announcing their intent before they sell bucketloads?
Example: id software and Doom.
For programs that are mainly written by one person - use GPL, but encourage users to donate. If you like what you have, you should pay some $$$ for it if you can. Peer review still exists, and the author can at least get a couple hundred dollars... if not more (depending on popularity). As with piracy it's a social problem. We want things for free, but we aren't understanding (as a culture) that free still costs money. Like music, if you like it, buy it! or in this case.. donate money!
As someone else mentioned above, there is nothing preventing the source code from being publically viewable. After all, it is the *rights* to the source code which are restricted under Ransom. That means that people could freely view and even modify the source code, as long as they didn't redistribute in any fashion. The details depend on what the developer puts in the Ransom (restricted) License.
Theoretic Solutions - Public think tank, creating grand ideas
"Ransom is a software publishing model where the rights to the source code remain restricted until a set amount of money is collected or a set date passes, at which point the code is freed".
/Simple).
This model is fair, legally sound, practical, and easy to understand. In the Ransom model, the programmers are paid by the simple demand and quality of their work, not by selling copies of their work by creating artificial supply restrictions.
The problem that Ransom solves is that many open source developers work very hard on their software projects, and usually end up giving their work away, due to the nature of open source. I firmly believe that their social-mindedness and generosity do not qualify as reasons why they shouldn't be fairly compensated for their work. It is impossible to ensure payments through closed source software use, so the rules of publishing the software in the first place need to be changed.
Current models do not work since they are not fair to all parties. Purely "closed source" softwares not only severely restrict the user's abilities and freedoms, but also ignore the laws of value by ignoring software's ability for unlimited supply using a simple 'copy' command. Purely open source software removes any chance of reliable income from the programmer and leaves them to the whims of gifts and benefactors. Neither of these are acceptable.
Details: In short, Authors (the programmers of the software) first publish their work under a Ransom License (a special proprietary license). There exists the stipulation that the code will be automatically freed to a set Open Source License ([OSI]/[FSF]-approved or the public domain) once a set amount of funds have been collected from Contributors (satisfied users, grateful corporate customers, or distributors/resellers) or a set amount of time passes, whichever comes first. You can read details of the complete step-by-step process.
The public gets completely open source software, and the programmers are fairly compensated for the real work they do, not the amount of "copies" they sell. Public interests are protected by legally-binding guarantees and oversight organizations. You can read details of all features and considerations.
Issues: The current issues being discussed are:
The list of Ransom Licenses (such as:
The list of Free Licenses.
Whether Ransom should allow authors to completely hoard their source code until the full Ransom amount has been paid, not even selling restricted copies.
Discussion: All discussion of Ransom occurs on the Ransom mailing list, to which you can [subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage]. The list is not moderated, but you must subscribe to post. You can also [read and search the archives] of the mailing list.
Background: This project began as an idea from a friend, Eric Murphy, on how to finance a digital identity system (which has now grown into [PingID]). I took the idea and posted to [Crynwr's Free Software Business list] about it. This project is the final realization on how to achieve financial compensation for producing open & free software.
---
This is a valid model, used by Blender amongst other projects. However, I think the use of the term 'Ransom' creates a rather negative perception - do you really want an open source model associated with kidnapping? -- RichardDonkin
Perhaps a better name would be: 'Appreciation Model' or 'Threshold Model'. -- PipStuart
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
The Street Performer Protocol and Digital Copyrights
There the idea is that the "author" promises to deliver his "work" (a novel, software, anything), as soon as he receives a certain amount of donations. Stephen King actually tried to publish a book like that, chapter by chapter, a few years ago, but I think he concluded that the time wasn't right for it yet.
Note the lack of a ??? step
Nullsoft did something like that a few years ago -- Winamp used to be shareware. Then, at version 2.50, Nullsoft thanked all those who purchased it, and turned Winamp into freeware.
was there a good way to make anything without a price tag and make money? Sounds like ass backwards logic to me.
I mean sure you can sell out and try to sell proprietary software to Microsoft, or heaven for bid pull a billy gates and lease it to them. But they'll end up copying you and running you out of business.
I say the best bet is to either give things away for free or sell it. There is no inbetween.
[cx]
They'd definitely be feelin' the Ransom love.
Similar pains in the Xopus project. Someone who has actively contributed, please comment.
sendmail, wu_ftpd and bind have proven that this is not true.
Open source does not give any advantage simply because almost nobody actually reads the code.
In theory, yes you can read it, in real life however, almost nobody takes advantage of this to audit the code and search for problems.
The fact that open source allows you to read the code doesn't mean that people actually read it.
That's exactlly what Blender did, and raised 100k$, which I'm sure wasn't cost of developing it... what about maintenance / bug fixes / new versions?
Randsom is bullshit. Inheritting old code is also bullsh*t. Take Mozilla's calendar for example, they got the initial code from oeone and havn't got anywhere after so long. If you're an experienced coder you'll know why this model su* so much.
girl
true, the Ransom model is "loose" enough to allow for expiration dates of 10 or more years, but I've decided to let the Ultimate Force govern here, as well: the free market. I'm sure users and contributors will be wise enough to check out the details of a project before helping it, and if they are happy with 10 years, then hey, that's all I want. :-)
Theoretic Solutions - Public think tank, creating grand ideas
Everyone seems to be equating the release of the app with the release of the source -- i.e., the "What about vaporware" question in many posts. Isn't the ransom just for the source, not the app itself? The ransom might take the form of a payment for the app itself -- i.e., "If enough people buy my app, I'll release the source under the GPL," vaguely like Id does with previous-generation games. This sounds like a nice idea. Most folks won't pay cash money for a crappy app, so the ransom model equates to "if the app is good enough for people to want the source, I'll release it!"
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
Greed, it builds strong bodies in twelve ways.
Greed, ask for it by name!
Greed, it worked for Enron executives, why not me?
Greed, it's what's for dinner.
Got greed?
"I've got this bitchen software that's like sooo cool 'n' stuff. Pay me and I'll let you use it for a limited time under certain restrictive circumstances subject to revokation at any time, your mileage may vary." -- Microsoft
:-)
-- Jessica
The mutant geek grrl from Hell.
yes, it certainly does beat nagware. If you are even mildly interested, sign up for the Ransom mailing list, even if it is just to watch (although I hope to draw in most subscribers. This model needs feedback).
Theoretic Solutions - Public think tank, creating grand ideas
I got a bunch of problems with this model. I'll mention them. Feel free to disagree.
I'm assuming that the binary must be free and freely distributable, otherwise, who would ever know about this project, and who, then, would donate money towards it. (Or, of course, this could have already been a commercial product that was not freely distributable, but that has a wide following.)
1) If a user does not care about every seeing the source code, he has no reason to pay for it, because again, he already has an unlimited right to use it as much as he wants.
2) Even if a user would like to see the source, he knows that it will one day be released, regardless of making a donation.
3) Even if a user would like to see the source as soon as possible, unless he can afford the entire ransom amount, he has no reason to believe that his donation will make the source released earlier: either not enough other people donate, so his donation is meaningless, or more than enough have donated, in which case his donation is unnecessary. (Do a google search on Kitty Genovese to see what I'm talking about).
Anyway, it doesn't seem like there is any reason for someone to donate, except for the same reasons they donate to OSS projects now. In fact, people might donate less, because nobody likes to pay "ransom" for anything.
The cost of developing it isn't the issue, monkey boy. Until the ransom is paid, the software is sold according to the normal proprietary model, and they can recoup their dev costs that way if they want. The ransom just needs to be at least what they'd expect to make from remaining sales of the product if they stuck with the proprietary model.
The server was slashdotted before I could read more than the front page (see Google cache), so I missed the "step-by-step process" description.
People have mentioned concerns about sky-high ransoms, but the free market will vote with its feet so that doesn't worry me. Likewise, the problem of a programmer who raises the ransom after the initial announcement will be solved because people will get disgusted and won't pay.
But there's a problem of fraud. Joe Programmer wrote Foo Program and I've donated ten bucks to have the source released. But I don't know if Joe counted my ten bucks toward the ransom, or simply pocketed it. If I'm patient and trusting, I can wait for market forces and reputation to filter out the programmers who pocket donations.
But Joe can do better by posting a list of donations. For donors who prefer to be anonymous, he assigns them a number and emails a copy of the number to them, so they can verify that their donations have been counted. Anybody can grab a snapshot of the donation list and throw it in a spreadsheet to verify the current tally.
Anybody whose donation was ignored can gripe in some suitable forum (Slashdot, Usenet, wherever) and if there are enough gripes that don't look like kooks, Joe's reputation will suffer.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
If you decide to subscribe to a company that claims to use the "Ransom model" then be sure to get something signed that the random terms will remain the same. A popular "economic experiment" hiest under the "ransom model" was conducted by Gravel State/Transgaming. He claimed that "once 20,000 subscribers are signed up, TransGaming will release all its current code under the Wine license." Then as he got more subscribers, the terms started changing. First, instead of all the code, he stated that under contract with companies like Macrovision that some of TransGaming's code would never be release under the Wine license (unlike the original license policy which refered to "all of this code"). Then around the time that Wine switched licenses, Gravel State decided to remove all references to any ransom model/"economic experiment" from the TransGaming web site despite the fact that the previous TG license policy did not specify any specific license for Wine, just that the code would be released "under the Wine license." It seemed like such a vaguely worded license policy would allow for Wine to change licenses and the license policy would still be in effect. When I contacted Gravel State about the situation he made it clear that TG would not be honoring it's social contract even if the number of subscribers reached 20,000 and that subscribers who where mislead into getting multi-month subscriptions by the claims of the previous license policy are still locked into the full subscription period. Anotherwords, the customer is still responsible for paying even if the ransom model is dropped complettely!
There plenty of other liars, cheats and theives like Gravel State out there! If you do not have a signed contract then consider the terms of ransom to be an unreachable moving target!
It sounds like a good idea, until you start trying to explain it to the public.
... But that can be done without a Ransom License anyway!
Salesguy: "Okay, yeah, the first thousand people to pay for this, get it... and so does everyone else."
Customer: "Even the people that don't pay for it?"
Salesguy: "Yup! That's how it works."
Customer: "... Why would I pay, then? I can just wait for someone else to."
Unless the ransom's low enough that the few people that really want it do pony up right away make the difference, it seems like people will end up waiting indefinitely. And forget about it when it doesn't come out.
You could maybe make the case that the instant gratification urge will win, and they'll want it right now even though they could have it free later, but I wouldn't be sure enough of that to put money on it.
This wouldn't apply to libraries and such, though, so maybe -- but what's really in it for those sorts of developers? The biggest draw I can see for this sort of license is for people who are going to deliver straight to the public. The cut-down version for the small fee draws them in, provides funding, and then once the ransom is met, you get a full release.
If King had said "I need $10k for the next chapter." he'd have been fine. By saying "x% of you need to pay" he was doomed to failure.
If I downloaded at home and work, then I screwed his calculations. If people downloaded 20 copies to screw with the system, they succeeded.
If a writer just decided what the market is worth for the story/novel and asks for it, then they're being fair and the system is more likely to work.
My Journal
Well, I don't think Ransom is going to replace open source software in any way. I think people who try that will fail. Ransom will be used in two areas:
* Currently proprietary software that can be freed by using the Ransom model to compensate the original developers.
* Projects that *could* be done as open source, but for one financial reason or another this would be infeasible, and so a "middle ground" solution needs to be used.
Theoretic Solutions - Public think tank, creating grand ideas
What would be interesting is if more companies started formally doing this, especially with regard to the time limit. For instance, much of the code base for the original Windows up to 95 is or soon will be of little use to MS. Likewise, the classic Mac OS, at least up to system 7 is obsolete. There are a number of application programs in the same boat. Wouldn't it be great for competition and innovation if source code was released after 5 years or so? Not only would this force companies to truly 'innovate or die', it would also provide great teaching examples for universities.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
My company has been doing this sort of thing for years, only we decided to call it Serviceware to more accurately reflect that it is based on the model of software as a service, where the code is made free once that service is paid for. So it's good others are seeing value in the concept, but it's a shame the publicity goes to someone that names it so poorly.
Its creator's M.O. is the ransom model. He released the game engine of his best game, Dink Smallwood, after he felt he had earned enough from it.
Now there are tons of modules that you can get for that game. Its inspired a lot of creativity. Of course, he didn't do it just because it was ransomware. He did it because it was about to become abandonware.
This seems like a good strategy for companies. If he released another Dinkesque game he'd have an instant fanbase bolstered by the freeware engine and the knowledge that eventually it would become another freeware engine.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
a new idea.. and for that matter most ideas arnt, but back to this one.. software always opens up when it reaches it sell by date.. i.e. when it aint worth jack no more in the commerical world.
moo
As for vaporware, a refund should be guaranteed on nonperformance. Escrow works, but has transaction costs. One puzzle would be defining performance -- what about buggy code? Who decides it's up to spec? Would problems lead to a full or partial refund? What circumstances?
I'm sure these have been thought of; I'm just thinking aloud, and the random webpage won't load (wonder why). Neat, creative idea.
Kind of like Stephen King's installment e-book "The Plant." But ... that didn't work ... which may have been natural selection.
A while ago, a friend of mine asked me how he could apply a sound economic model to the distribution of digital (a.k.a. easily reproducible) media. He wanted a system that fully accepted the near-uselessness of DRM technology. I told him about the "Street Performer Protocol".
This is the only model that makes sense to me in that it is clear, well-defined, and simple, yet complete. As the world "gets smaller", the information (knowledge) economy seems to be converging on a sort of minimum -- where the moment a piece of private information becomes public, it becomes public with a capital P (anyone who wants it will get it whether you like it or not). Digital technology allows the game of telephone to be played ad infinitum, and the message at the end of the line is the same as it was at the beginning. Sure, we can try to stretch the Copyright and Patent laws to fight this, but isn't the more intelligent solution to adapt to the new environment in a profitable way?
I have heard economists argue that "secrets" will become the most profitable asset in the information economy (as if they aren't already). This certainly applies to international politics and military affairs already.
In any case, it seems to me that SPP is in sync with all of this. And of course it applies to source code! I think that distributed development deserves a distributed payment system, based on SPP or something like it...
As for practicality, please note that SPP is not new or untested. Public Radio & Television, for example, has been doing it for decades: "We'll give you a quality stream of news/entertainment if and only if you pay us $X by date Y". And guess what -- it works. The government backs out of more of its commitment to funding public media each year, and yet the industry is here.
Probably the name is the worst part of the whole idea. I thought SPP was bad, but "Ransom" -- that's near idiotic -- the kind of name that makes great soundbites for the RIAA. Yeah, "Ransom" sucks. The idea of SPP is great though -- I just wonder why more folks aren't on the bandwagon yet?
BTW, the whole Stephen King experiment is an awful example of this, since there are so many external contributing factors. A fair first experiment with this concept would use a medium that is commonly distributed in digital format. While people do read from computer screens frequently, they do not tend to read novels on the computer. A more fair test would be in the distribution of music, software applications, software documentation, digital images, etc.
OK -- rant done.
1. people should not start software projects to make money. It's good if you can make money off software, but software written not because you enjoy it or you need this particular problem solved usually sucks.
;)
2. typical free software projects need external help the most in the very beginning. Most projects fail before the first working prototype is finished. Because of that, I won'd be contributing to ransom software; I can't even be sure that the software will be released as free software because I have no way to know how much money will be donated.
3. accountability. How do you know the author will not lie to you about how much money he made so far?
4. disincentive to cheat. If the author survival depends on this, he has an incentive to let you pay through your nose for updates and upgrades and new features, and you will probably hire him because nobody else knows the source code like him so he can be faster than others.
In my experience, free software projects work best if they are a) not paid for at all (you do it in your spare time) or b) they are paid for by one company who really needs this problem solved but you are allowed to release the software as GPL, too.
Even better: c) you start the project as GPL but get your work funded by some company who needs the problem solved. Many of my projects are category c) and it's really in the best interest of you (because you get the money and you get to write free software), the company (they get their problem solved and they get the source code and random people off the net will help them improve their software for free), and the world (because the world gets new free software as part of the creative commons world heritage). In contrast to the street performer protocol this is actually known to work in practice
Transgaming is doing this ... kind of. Except that they ask people to pay without actually making promises of what level of money must be attained before the code becomes GPL'd.
They've promised that, at some point, it all gets handed back to the community, but there has been zero discussion of when this might be.
This just seems to be Open Source Shareware... maybe I'm missing the point, but it strikes me as a very similar idea.
You get the 'Trial' version, and if enough people pay for the 'Full' version, it gets Open Sourced...
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
We paid them billions in ransome- no code We got the man involved (DOJ)- no code Oops wait thats the wrong codenappers :)
It amazes me that nobody else has pointed out the obvious yet. We already have this model. In fact, in the US, there's even a provision in the Constitution for it. It's called intellectual property. Y'know, the thing that says you can't copy stuff, or use a patented technique, for a while after it's first created, and then everyone can have it? (Readers planning to rant about Disney and the extension of copyright dates may save their fingers; we all thought it, and it doesn't change my point.)
Before anyone asks me to go RTFA, yes, I realize that this does not make provision for also releasing the code when a certain amount of money has been raised, but this has happened regardless in some cases. (See, for example, iD's release of the code for their earlier games well before it would have been out of copyright. They were ahead of the game on shareware, and on that, too.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
How many times have we heard developers say: I'm doing this for free, because I feel like it and it's none of your business telling me what YOU want ME to do. FUCK OFF!
I think this could be a great way to get developers interested in things the users want like good GUIs, better usability, better manuals, Wizards. We users could set up projects and stock them up with money to stimulate developers which could compete with each other to see who gets it. The Free Software Foundation could administer the prize money to see that there are no scams or to redirect it (with previous consent of the clients) if there are no takers or the project dies for some other reason.
This could even work as a project inside a distribution like Mandrake or Lycoris. I'm sure there would be a lot of ideas on how to do this!
There would be a far better interaction between users and developers than what is even thinkable with closed-source software. I think that for a fraction of what we pay for closed source, we would get in much shorter time greatly superior OS Software.
I think this could be the missing link for letting OOS fly and fly away!
On the one hand, I think I would do a lot of good to the community if I copylefted my article. A lot of people might read it who otherwise would never come across it. On the other hand, allowing the only copy to be on my website generates a lot of valuable traffic that helps to advertise my consulting business. But on still another hand, maybe having the copylefted version in the wild would do even more to publicize my business.
John Levon suggested that that particular article is probably best where it is. I'm thinking now that he's probably right.
But I have other articles that I am thinking of copylefting. I have started writing a column on cross-platform software development. My thought now is that I will copyleft my articles, say, six months after they are published. The one article I have posted so far is older than that, so if I decide to do this I will copyleft it right away.
That way there will be traffic to my cross-platform site from people looking for new articles, but ultimately they will have the most positive effect if they are picked up by linux distros, for example.
I'm still undecided about it, I probably won't make a decision right away. Yes, I want to help people. But I'm sorry to say that it's been challenging to be a self-employed software consultant since the dot-com crash. My articles take a lot of work to write, and I don't get paid for writing them, in fact I take a lot of time off to write that I could spend doing billable work for my clients. They are an effective advertising medium. The decision of whether to copyleft them is going to have to be based in large part on what I think would be best for my business.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Ummm....how is it free if it costs money to get it?
I don't mean to flame, but how is this any different from regular old capitalism? You get the source code....if you pay for it...
But wait, it's released 10 years down the road....when no one cares anymore...
But wait, you can get windows 95 for nothing from anybody who still has it because they're not using it and have no use for it...hence free...
See the parallels?
Question everything
Stephan King uses this sort of model already for many years. He writes a book and publishes a chapter after a certain amount of money reaches a bank account. He has been very successful with it too.
-- Stephan Richter
Okay, so we're talking about creating a product that has a specific revenue goal, coupled with a plan to stop collecting revenue at the point where the goal is reached.
This is just as alien to a business management type as the free model, and the reason is, if you have a product that takes revenue, the conventional model is to generate consistent gains on that revenue -- or else it is not considered a reasonable venture!
In other words, no matter how much money your product is expected to make in the first year, if you can't increase that in the second year, it's not going to fly in the minds of a financier.
I've always thought this attitude was somewhat myopic; that the argument could be made for a status quo which does not require continually increasing gains... But that's not what they are teaching MBA's from Stanford and Harvard, and therefore, not what's going to be practiced in American business any time soon.
If this solution were to be implemented, it would only work if there was a 3rd party that could be trusted by all sides of the deal. The 3rd party would 'release' the software when the conditions of the agreement were met, and would certify that the software performs to the specifications made public.
Otherwise the scheme would tend to generate mistrust on the public's side of the equation. Perhaps someone like the EFF or the GNU people could hold the rights in escrow until the appointed date/cash level is reached.
Personally I prefer that we could all just trust each other to be reasonable.
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
This reminds me of Doom - sell millions of closed source copies, wait a few years, and then release the product as open source.
When I first read the title, I assumed "Ransom" meant paying for patches until the product worked correctly. Given a recent discussion about the unfortuneate naming of Extreme Programing, I think the "Ransom" moniker should be re-considered.
There are two ways to get the winex emulator. The first is the free alternative, which is source code available from sourceforge that is licensed under the Aladdin license. This version may not be up to date, but occasionally new changes are checked in. Second, is the commercial version that contains the licensed stuff, as you noted. The Aladdin license does not permit people to take the code and add it into BSD/X11 or LGPL-licensed software. Transgaming appears to have abandoned hope of getting enough subscribers just to relicense some source code, so they instead appear to be concentrating on promoting the commercial version for maximal Windows gaming.
be written by pasting different sized letters cut out from a newspaper onto typing paper?
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
"It's like if a company wanted to tear down a bunch of beatiful old stone buildings (which by and large would be far too expensive to build today) to get the stone, and justified it by saying they'd build some tacky prefabs to replace them. Well, great, there's still a roof to protect you from the rain, but wouldn't you feel a bit cheated?"
:)
Yes.
It's fairly disingenuous (but understandable, predictable, etc) for Weyerhaeuser to act as if "trees is trees" but you're right, there is a difference between a tree farm and a nice old forest.
Even people who are not opposed to large-scale logging (like home builders or potential builders who don't want to double their lumber costs and have not seen the light that wood is not the only material with which to build a house) can agree that logging is even at best beautiful in the cauldron-of-creation way rather than the sculpture-of-beautiful-woman way.
Still, they plant 'em
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Well, perhaps rules could be set so that the ransom is fixed. Or, at least, that they should not exceed a certain value (or percentage of the original one).
As to being "locked into a 100% proprietary solution", that can't happen, because of the time limit.
--I see on their site the plan is to use paypal. I don't see yet if there's a provision or a scheme about the micropayment theory. I'd rather have a sort if system like that, where I could donate x-amount-cash, and then be able to login and donate a buck here a buck there to several projects, all at that same time, on that single transaction, but have the total transaction only be skimmed one time by paypal(or whomever),not every single transaction to every single project. And it should have a cap, that skimming part, and not very high, as frankly,I can't afford the minimums to make it worthwhile to the developers. I imagine a lot of people feel this way and are in a similar situation. I'd love to be able to shoot ten bucks or more to every project I'd like to support but that isn't happening. Is there a work around for this or am I reading this idea wrong?
As an aside, I'd like to support the distro releasers as well this way, and here's the rub, for my pet distro and even the distros I don't normally use, it still wouldn't bother me to send them "a buck or two" now and then if it was cheap and easy for me to do this without incurring the high transaction fee financial pain threshhold. I'd like the ability to only incur ONE fee for supporting MANY projects, so the developers get the most loot, not paypal or another middleman. I don't mind they get "some" just make it low enough so that more folks might be interested because it's cheap and easy to do so. Like, you login and are presented with an extensive menu and set of checkboxes, your cash level to donate is carved in stone at that time for that transaction, depending on how many checkboxes you check, that's what % of your loot gets transferred, within some sort of minimum reasonableness, make it a dollar maybe. The default on the checkbox can be like any shopping cart, it's zero-empty, you can manually change that if you want say 1 or 2 or 3 to go one of your favorite projects, singles to others, or whatever, up to your limit for that transaction. Some folks got no probs dropping a franklin that way, other folks can drop a jackson and still be contributing at least something, and it can get spread out better/faster/wider.
But why not release a beta of the code, and if people like it, then use the ransom model. Seems like a good compromise. "hey this code has potential, I'll donate and see how the finished version looks."
Not so fast...
First, the opensource model is great and all but it only serves right when is used to develop very common software, something almost everybody wants or something that can be built in small steps.
But there is a lot of software that simply doesn't fit the opensource model, because it will be used by very few people (which can't contribute with much developers, but surely can with lots of money), or because it represents a really big effort before a barely useful product and no group of developers could dedicate themselves to such kind of effort unless they are jobless.
This ramson model seems to fit the gap between the purely commercial software and the purely opensource software, and remember that a software fits in any class because functionality and target users, not only because the beliefs of the programmers. That includes technical beliefs.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Software patents are enforcable for a time, then become public domain. (ie I can use RSA without paying them a dime). I know the patent system is far more fucked up but it seems this is no revolutionary idea. What am I missing?
The problem is, what if the project is great as a free open source program, but not worth paying the price for it while its still under ransom?
Shoot Pixels, Not People!
I'm hearing a lot of "But what about vaporware? What if I donate money and the software is never finished?" That isn't what the developers are asking you to do.
From the article,
In short, Authors (the programmers of the software) first publish their work under a Ransom License (a special proprietary license). There exists the stipulation that the code will be automatically freed to a set Open Source License ([OSI]/[FSF]-approved or the public domain) once a set amount of funds have been collected from Contributors (satisfied users, grateful corporate customers, or distributors/resellers) or a set amount of time passes, whichever comes first. You can read details of the complete step-by-step process.
So, basically:
1)Write software.
2)Release software, but not source code (aka freeware).
3)Request donations, tell people that once you reach $X you'll release the source code under an open license such as the GPL or donate it to the public domain.
4)Once a certain amount of time has passed, or you've reached your goal of $X in donations, release the software's source code.
Being just a cross between work-for-hire and shareware, this idea's been around for a while. I've had it for a few years now, though I haven't had the time and gumption to put it into practice. In short, I'm concerned that the community won't tolerate temporary hoarding, in fairness I may have to allow totally proprietary derived works, and the psychology it'll take to reach the ransom isn't clear.
isn't this (minus the money part) exactly what a copyright does. A shorter time frame say 2 years instead of about 20 would be nice though.
-kurt
Or maybe it could be tied to the product's upgrade cycle, such that anything two or more major versions back goes into the "freed" bin. I think that's reasonable, in that most sales are of either the current version or the one immediately previous.
No matter what the terms are, there will always be people who try to cheat some more longevity into their cut, but do you really care about having source for such people's products?? if they're not trustworthy on contracts, they're probably not writing trustworthy code either.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
...is about 20,000 chumps willing to actually pay for it instead of wait a little while to get it free. At 50 bucks a pop, the company will make its one million dollars. But where are you going to find 20,000 suckers to plunk down the 50 bucks rather than wait and plunk down nothing?
[I]If ignorance is Bliss, why aren't there more happy people?[/I]
"It is essential that justice be done
I don't know what specific vunerability of wu_ftp your refering to, but I personally think sendmail and bind have both benifited from the OSS model.
OSS doesn't mean there won't be any vunerabilities, it means it will be easier to spot them when people go looking. It also means decreased time to patch. (and many other benifits)
I live in a giant bucket.
The article does not reflect upon the economics of open source since it assumes that the developers are giving out free gifts withought getting anything in return a sort of a philanthropic action on their part. The ransom model i think has the following key drawbacks 1) Since the source is closed for some period of time (breakeven,20% or 40% return what??? )it deprives the software from peer review in its early stages which ensures that the software remains potentailly buggy. 2)It also deprives company from penetrating the market with a zero cost software(opensource) which everyone would take (and then the producer firm makes money by charging for customisation) the ransom model clearly does not permit that. 3)Fixing up a time frame for releasing it to open source upfront especially for products where customer adoption is highly variable might be a tricky business. 4)For technology areas where customisation is important and products have larger life cyscles open source makes sense whereas in areas where product life cycle is less closed source would make sense. 5) Also from the perspective of the customer in case product has larger lifecycle he might wait or maybe straightaway shift to some open source technology or if the lifecycle is short for hom waiting till the proscut is open sourced would not make sense and he might as well go for a closed source software. However there is one area where this model can make sense That is a company operating across diverse areas strategically wanting to get out of a specific business which is closed source but also doesnt want its customers to lose out with the company no longer supporting the development.( thereby ensuring that no cutomers look at it favorably since they know that even if the firm from which they are buyinng goes out they can be assured of the life of the software.This would ensure that even as the company goes out of a specific product business cutomers continue to look at it in a favorable fashion.
Here's my view on the subject: in a nutshell, more options that will develop free software, more ways of doing it, more business models, is better, not worse.
I think part of the point is that we want more and better free software to be available.
Let me give myself as an example: I *like* to program. When Linux was in early potato stages, when NASM was first being developed, I was programming in machine language for DOS with DOS Debug, not really understanding Windows, and not having the assets to get the tools or literature. I would have loved to have been working with Linux or Windows then.
Unfortunately, I had a young family, and couldn't afford the time or money. (Remember, free as in speech, not as in beer, though free beer really is nice sometimes.) So I've been in DTP (desktop publishing) instead. I work for myself, which is pretty good, because I'm a lousy employee: I demand "total package" solutions to my problems, and most employers want to just pay a wage and forget the rest.
And my programming skills aren't *all* that great, but they are pretty good, and I have an impressive range of algorithms. One algorithm I developed allows you to take two photos, identify identical points, and from that reconstruct the 3-D position. I don't know if it's been done yet, but it is impressive.
But I don't have the time, if my family's going to eat (we don't do welfare, though that would concievably be an alternative in some systems). I suppose that I could go work for a private company, but that doesn't entirely appeal either.
One alternative would be ransomware. If there was a ransomware company out there, one that would pay my expenses as long as I was really producing, I really would consider that. I get the money (food, house) to do what I like doing, and the world gets good free software.
As far as it goes, though, as a user I would only trust ransomware if the payments were managed by a standard FSF group, and if the license was such that it was valid through the entire process: before the amount, it is not free; after the amount, it is free and preferrably identical to GNU/BSD, but it is the same license.
The rest, to me, are details. Some people will want to release the code; some people will not want to: more business models is better, not worse. But if a group like the Peruvian government wants to buy the software into freedom, they can. If they do, then it is more than likely that they will also want support -- which can help continue to feed my (and other peoples') family until they understand the program themselves.
This could mean we have to re-think the way software develops.
See a software company doesn't just make a single product and sell it like chairs or tables or stuff like that. They plan on development and a growing product.
With this semi-open strategy, development rates will change, provided you allow open source developers to submit code for approval in the product the way it is now. Development speed is what dictates costs and approaches within a bussiness.
Things will have to become more dynamic and less concrete before this will work to full potential.
What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
The real advantage of Ransomware is that it allows the development of market driven software that is then released into the Public domain.
.debs. At some point, the cost to make the software free is tiny, and gnu.org buys it free. They then ship an announcement to all purchasers "Your software is free! You can download the code now!" or "Your software is free! You can make copies, use the code, and redistribute it now!"
First, I think that proper Ransomware should store the sourcecode with the FSF, and let the FSF manage the accounts. Fox guarding the chickens? Never. FSF has every incentive to make ransomware work: it's more like the human guarding the chickens.
But that being the case, the FSF can also assure that the GNU (or other free) license is not trampled in the process. How? They simply look at the code. If the code contains stuff pirated from GNU, they can say "whoops. You can't distribute this until you replace these sections of code." Then the company that is producing the ransomware will fix the offending portions and rerelease. The FSF will then keep *both* sets of code, for the day when the software becomes free.
As for people like you waiting out the time limit, I have to say I often do to. That said, there is a lot of software that I don't use, for that very reason. That isn't bad: if I really need it to run my business, you can bet I'll buy it. I shell out $800 for Quark Xpress when I need it; I'd shell out $100 in a moment for another license for my "DESKPAINT", if I could get it (it's closed source, went free as in beer, and then went unfree as in unavailable). Other products, like web browsers or decompression programs, I always wait for the free version.
As far as the Free Source community's reasons for doing things, different people have different motivations. This will instead bring commercially-motivated developers into the Free Software tent. I don't think it will significantly move Free Software developers in their reasons why they are developing software. To me, the main reason to develop software is that it is neat to be able to do something new.
In the end, I think that you will never end up with less than *nix as it is right now; you will just increase the rate at which free software is developed.
By the way: I would also think it would be interesting to consider a decreasing price: that is, as the limit price is approached, the price per copy drops. Thus, to get a license for software that most other people have, it might cost you only $0.25. You go over to gnu.org, having already deposited $50 with them at some time, and check "buy me a license of this", they subtract $0.25 from your account, and email you a copy of the
It means that if you want to buy a license before it becomes free, you pay a bit of money.
And the way to assure that an evil corporation doesn't reset the date and run off with the code is you let it be managed by FSF.
Although, that said, I have fantasized about a ransom corporation allowing the code to be purchased for 100x the "software freeing" price. The idea would be that such money then gets donated straight to GNU, so that they can buy *more* code free, or sponsor more development (win/win situation, perhaps). But I dunno about that one.
However I think this should be bound into a legal frame much like GPL/BSD/Apache/... are for Free Software/OSS. This would allow people to avoid loosing their heads in tons of legal embroglios for each product that might appear. Besides, it may ease the mechanism of turning closed source products into open source, by creating a generally accepted practice. Also, a well established financing mechanism would create more trust among the community and people would not fear so highly on loosing money. I think OSS-prone lawyers have something good to think about.
A commonly accepted type of agreement might avoid the dangers of vaporware and other problems that might arise. Besides it will allow such things to be more well received among the community.
Sincerly I think that such things are quite important has they may create a bridge on turning lots of old closed source software into community hands. Also this can be a viable mechanism to finance the development of very complex applications that otherwise would remain in the shadows, waiting for some well-hearted sponsor with big pockets.
This model seems stupid to me.
1. Software is released under a 'Ransom' license.
2. People don't buy the software, waiting for it to become free once x others have bought it.
3. No one buys the software.
4. The software never becomes free, and no one uses it.
It's wholly unfair that some people get to use it for free whilst others pay for it. Opensource developers SHOULD code apps because they like doing so, and because they're useful, and they should make their wages doing maintainance/individual projects for companies.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
If you think about it, it's almost the system iD has been using with the older Quake games (in releasing Q1 and Q2 source). After they got thier money back from people enjoying thier binaries, they release the source code for people to tinker with after a period of time.
But back to the point, think about the effect this could have on the abandonware if this was applied to commercial license. You could finally fix that one bug that annoyed you in your fav program, or if you were really up for a challange, you could fix the bugs in Windows 95 ;)
my "DESKPAINT", if I could get it (it's closed source, went free as in beer, and then went unfree as in unavailable)
Then just copy the original binaries and install it on other machines. In order for it to be unavailable as opposed to abandonware, the company has to have explicitly stated that the product must no longer be licensed out. Otherwise they've likely just gone bankrupt.
Other products, like web browsers or decompression programs, I always wait for the free version.
Web browsers tend now always to be free, and there is NEVER a free version of decompression programs for Windows, only ever shareware. And decompression programs for *nix are almost always free.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Of course people are unlikely to go digging around in the source code immediately just to search for bugs. What they are likely to do, however, with OSS, is go digging around in the source code when they DISCOVER a bug. With the Ransom model, they would likely have to pay for that priviledge or wait 10 years, which is going to heavily discourage people from doing it.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
How is this any different from regular copy righted code, where the source code is supposed to be freed after 95 years.
And the copy right holders have the option to release the code to the public at any time any way.
A had an interesting thought on this issue: I wonder if something like this would solve the "abandonware" problem.
What I refer to is in the realm of games (or at least this is where a most commonly hear the term used; it could really apply to any older, still useful software). There have been cases where a really neat game that still has play value (or at least nostalgia value) is no longer being produced, but attempts to distribute copies of the game result in lawsuits for copyright infringement from the company that authored the game, even though there is no revenue coming in from these games for them anymore.
If this ransomware (and, yes, it needs a better name) were in place, then after a certain amount of time the source code would be made public and people can enjoy the game again, even enhance it or modernize it, or derive something else from it.
Naturally, this system would have to have a lot of controls in place to prevent abuse. You don't want a company setting it up so you can't get the source before 20 years have passed or something like that. A good way to determine a money/time limit would be to perform some sort of anaylsis on past revenue and compute in what time do you make X% of your revenue on a software product, and the value of X would depend on what safety margin the company wants for itself.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
"Rights to the source code remain restricted until a set amount of money is collected or a set date passes, at which point the code is freed."
...". Maybe the distributee would have to run naked through Times Square for each time they distributed the program. The point is, the restriction could be anything- very strict or practically nothing. The ransom model is more like a framework for more specific licenses (see Simple license on the link page.)
All it says is the rights are RESTRICTED. This does not necessarily mean the source code isn't available, or even that it is an open development model. Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of the slashdot community don't even really understand what the GPL provides. Under the ransom model the software may not yet be Free but that doesn't necessarily mean its not open. You could do an open source project under the ransom model in the exact same way as any other open source project.
The restrictions on the code could be anything. Maybe only every other line is available. Maybe you're not allowed to distribute the code at all, but you could still modify and use it. Maybe you could modify and distribute the source code but not a binary until the random was paid. Maybe you could distribute the source and binary but it was mandatory that a little popup box was coded that said "This program is under ransom by
I'll delete all the source files... unless you pay me one million dollars!
Mwaaah ha ha!
We'll build a (air-quotes) moon base and stick a (air-quotes) laser on it. Unless they pay one-hundred-billion dollars we'll blow up Redmond! Wha... that's not what you meant by ransom?
bUy m0rE MicRoSOft ProDuCTs Or wE sHaLL coNtInuE tO MaKE aN EvEN CrUddIeR Os. YoU haVE OnE WeEk tO CoMPly. -Bill Gates (Yes I'm stinkin rich, NO you can't have any.)
~Love is trusting, love is honest, love is not a hand that holds you down.~ "You Wanted More" - Tonic
One project which is doing this right now is Free Pepper. They are attempting to raise $11,000 to buy the source code of the popular, but discontinued, Pepper programmers' editor for Mac (Pepper 4 was also ported to Windows and Linux).
I never used Pepper but I wanted to push this site because I want this idea -- which now has a name -- to succeed. So check out their site and maybe give 'em a buck or two.
What kind of idiot not only bowlderizes words but also leaves those words unbowlderized in the same paragraph? Please die.
isn't this what winamp did back in the day? sort of... they "required" payment after 20 days of use... and nowadays it's free... legally...
-judging another only defines yourself
If I release a binary, its copyright will theoretically expire (75 years after the author's death, or 95 years after release for a corporate author, though in practice the US Congress won't let that happen), but the source will never be available unless I feel like releasing it also.
finger @code.com | mail customer
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Unless the copyright holder explicitly declares "this work is now in the public domain", even if they go bankrupt somebody still has the copyright. It may be hard to find out who or get their permission to redistribute, which is a big problem for library archives when the only known copies of out-of-print books, records, and movies are deteriorating.
Info-ZIP and gzip have been ported for a long time.
Surely this will kill collaborative development? Without collaborative development, free software will die.
Well worth a read, IMHO.
Slightly offtopic, my favorite quote is this one:
Sweeeeet.BlackBolt
In the IT business world the first choice you have to face is "make or buy".
In the OpenSource world it is more a "create or join" thing: you can develop your own version of a software or decide to join another project.
How could you join a "Ransom" project? You ask for a preview of the code to see if you want to join? I don't think so..
Maybe this economical model is sound for 1-2 programmers (maybe friends or colleagues) projects but I don't see it working for bigger or "heterogenous staffed" projects.
After all, you'd probably decide to join a project if you think it is interesting and well architectured: what if I sign in (???) for working in a "Ransom" project just to discover it is a bunch of "spaghetti-code", "lava flow", "blob" and "legacy code" sort of things?
I'm afraid we would see A LOT of similar "Ransom" project where programmers would not group together to make a better product.
This message doesn't need a sig