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."
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
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.
the other choices were just as bad ... "escrow" or (held in) "trust" ...
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Others have brought up the negative connotations about the name, but far more have liked it. I personally like the name because it makes people stop and look, and because it is so bold it actually comes off as being a bit goofy of a name. Also, it very appropriately describes the entire process in one simple word. How many other projects can claim that? :-)
Besides, end users are not likely to ever see the term "Ransom". I expect this model will mostly be seen and used by the developers and their sponsors, investors, and distributors/resellers (to use those terms loosely).
Theoretic Solutions - Public think tank, creating grand ideas
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
"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.
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.
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
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.