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."
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.
The code could still be public, but not "open," allowing more eyes, and even suggestions, but not permitting someone else to use the code without permission.
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
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.)
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?
This has been done before. Anyone remember Blender (http://www.blender.org/)? They did this months ago when they were on the verge of bankruptcy their shareholders agreed to release the code if they received $100,000 in donations. It seemed to work out well for them, but they already had a well established program developed by full-time programmer and had quite a significant following of users. I'm not sure they would have been able to pull this off if they had tried to do it early on.
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.
Similar pains in the Xopus project. Someone who has actively contributed, please comment.
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
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
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.
"Corporations are not known to plant trees when they chop them down!"
:)
:) Few primitivists expand much upon the effects of slash and burn agriculture, either :) (Not that these are some sort of binary choice, just that the world is complex, and most of life is a series of interesting tradeoffs.)
Well, some of them are
This is a hostile reference, it's true, but does not contradict that at least the world's largest timber company (which has a good incentive to plant trees) does in fact plant them.
As to the chip-on-shoulder complaint that Weyerhaueser "does not expand upon how many of those 40 million seedlings make it to maturity or how many of those tree farms are replacing our disappearing old-growth forests," eh, no comment at this time
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
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
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.
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
I usually go with a GPL license from the start and offer companies the option of an alternative license that'd allow them to distribute without releases of their own changes. I've considered the idea of switching to a 'ransom' model where customers get a tempory license allowing them to distribute without releasing code and after I got $xxxx.xx back to pay for the development costs dual license the code as GPL/BSD. So far I've resisted such a model though because I dislike the BSD license in general. I'd rather keep control over all exceptions to the GPL.
I was going to do ransom on per-version basis though. Each new release would have to be paid for again (just the costs of that release) if they wanted to be able to base their software off the newest code base.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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.