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.
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..
$cat
I'm surprised this hasn't been thought of before, it's reasonable solution to what I have always seen as one of the major holes in the open source movement. Beats nagware any day.
Brevity is the soul of wit
-- Polonius
The code/design that is reviewed and critiqued from the start is always better than the code that is the critiqued after the implementation. Again with the Ransome model, the design will not be as good as the opensource design model. http://docbook.sc-icc.org
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
I don't believe it does. Here's why.
If a company uses open source software, they'll have extra money (saved from not having licensing costs). If they're smart, they can then use this money to hire developers to work on open source projects, giving back to the community which has given to them. It's like planting a tree when you chop one down; smart in the long term.
Coming form a perspective of people believing that software should be free, the ransom name seems apt. In contrast, I suppose Microsoft would be using the slavery model :).
As for a third party, is it really that important? I mean, they develop the software, you buy it. If at some point they don't make their commitment to release it to the world, then you just stop buying it from them. If you can't afford to take the risk of changing away from it later, then don't buy into ransom software.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The problem with this whole situation is this IMHO... first of all, this will cause people to (a) pirate what used to be free source anyways. (b) cause people like me to wait out the time limit so that i will always be two steps behind what is current unless we will fork out ca$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!
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
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!
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
"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
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.
I just want to point out that Ransom is not likely to work for people who would otherwise be able to purely open source the project. If a project is so easily done as an open source project, then a competing (fully open source) project will come along and take away the Ransomed project's users. Ransom will work best in areas where traditional (is open source old enough to have a "traditional" label???) open source can't work very easily, areas where the proprietary, corporate developers still rule.
Theoretic Solutions - Public think tank, creating grand ideas
"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.
...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!
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
be written by pasting different sized letters cut out from a newspaper onto typing paper?
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
--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.
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.
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?
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.
Win95 isn't free. Its source will probably never be published, regardless of if and when it paid for itself.
Plenty of consulting firms do work for which they're going to be paid well but only once. I worked at one that had been around for twenty years (they only went bankrupt because they expanded rapidly to serve dotcoms who went bankrupt). Your argument only applies to people who view software development as publishing.
If most of your apps weren't even worth the labor that went into them, why would it be a good thing for your business to prosper?
Why would they compete with a project that'll soon be freed anyway, rather than compete with a proprietary project or do something unique?
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.
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.
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)
What kind of idiot not only bowlderizes words but also leaves those words unbowlderized in the same paragraph? Please die.
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.
Winamp merely stopped charging for binaries. They haven't published source.
Ad-hoc collaboration will have to wait until the code is freed, but then everyone will always be able to reuse it in all their own projects. You can also organize a team to collaborate and split the ransom.