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."

Comments

Ransom is such a negative word

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I think we're forgetting something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Eh, maybe its appropriate...

[sterno]

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.

The ramson model has one problem ...

[fferreres]

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.

Interesting, but not new...

[V.P.]

Check for example Kelsey and Schneier's "Street Performer Protocol", published a couple years back in First Monday:

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.

King did it wrong

[samael]

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.

Re:King did it wrong

[istartedi]

A better way that is known to work is serial publication in a magazine or newspaper. I am reminded of this because I was watching "History's Mysteries" the other night and they were talking about original manuscript pages from Uncle Tom's Cabin which was published serially in a newspaper. IIRC, a number of other famous American works were originally published in this manner and went on to do well.

In the 19th century it worked because newspapers were widely read, and it was unlikely that someone would go through the trouble to clip the stories and bind them to make a personal "book". Those who didn't get the paper heard word-of-mouth from people who had, and got the book when it came out.

I'm not sure how this could work on the web, because the works can be copied so readily now. Reading things on the screen is a pain, so people might not read the whole novel, and even if they did read it they'd send their friends the link, not a recommendation to buy it.

Things get more interesting when you have easy-reading screens. Combine that with exclusive distribution through one subscriber service, and you duplicate the 19th century serial publishing model.

Trouble is, the author still has to cut a deal with the publisher. So... this doesn't really compare with King's experiment which was direct to the customer. Also, King is King. Joe B. Hacker is "nobody" so even if he writes great fiction, how will he get people's attention?

Re:I think we're forgetting something

[MikeFM]

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.