Slashdot Mirror
The 'Everyone Gets the Source Code, Donations Get You Binaries' Software Model
TroysBucket writes "One developer who is trying to fund his development work via donations has taken on an 'Everyone gets the source code, donations get you binaries' business model, where he provides installers and binaries directly only to donating users. Quoting: 'A very central goal of everything I am doing, right now, is to show a concrete [and highly documented] way that other developers can fund their own FOSS work. With that in mind One major mistake I made, right off the bat, was that I provided very little direct benefit to people who donate (no “perks”).' Has anyone seen this work well before with other projects?"
All this will really do is decrease your user-base. If I download some source and it's lacking the necessary scripts to compile and install the thing, I move on and find another solution that does what I need. I don't have time to write my own make files to get the thing working.
He says in the post that others can do this and that he has no problem with it.
By only providing the binaries to donors, it looks like you are only charging nontechnical users, while more technically inclined users get it for free.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
He know, he's fine with it. From TFA:
"Now. You'll note that all of this software is GPL'd. Which means any Tom, Dick or Harry (or any other awesome name) can build their own binaries and distribute it on their website or repository. And I have absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever."
Am I right in thinking that this is basically the deal with Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Seems to work for them despite the existence of White Box Linux.
I think I've seen a large scientific graphic package with similar terms. It was easy for me to find third-party binaries, but evidently brand-name recognition was sufficient to keep some people buying from the developer.
I'm kind of confused about what he's actually doing. "I build and maintain the “official” installers and packages and provide them, to those that contribute." Does that mean he's holding back make files and install scripts? If he's not, it should be easy to compile your own binaries and thus there's no reason to donate at all, and yes, he's just charging people who don't know how to make from source. But if he is holding back make files, then he's making sure pretty much no one who has something better to do will download his software.
But that's wrong. So wrong that you failed to read this:
>Now. Youâ(TM)ll note that all of this software is GPLâ(TM)d. Which means any Tom, Dick or Harry (or any other awesome name) can build their own binaries and distribute it on their website or repository. And I have absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever.
>modded informative
And the moderator was wrong too.
--
BMO
>The problem with that is... they don't get the binaries, they can't try out the software and learn how good it is.
Sure they can.
They can compile it their own damn selves.
--
BMO
OpenBSD did(does?) a similar thing with their install CDs, and they were largely under the even-less-restrictive-on-distributors BSD license. There was nothing stopping 3rd party packagers, and they acknowledged as much. Conveniently for them, though, their user base is both fairly loyal(and thus wanted to support the project) and fairly paranoid(and thus not entirely trusting of 3rd-party install packages)...
Not sure of how successful it is, but Colloquy for the iPhone is a pay for version, and the source is readily available. Perhaps code signing and walled gardens need to exist for this model to be successful, also release source a version behind the binaries would probably help, too.
Sig: I stole this sig.
If you're a main developer and pushing progress into the project, you have a de-facto monopoly on new releases -- other people's releases will be late and/or less tested. You will be the official source.
In GPLv2 (perhaps not GPLv3) you can have the program open source, but keep the build scripts to yourself.
You can enforce being official even further by registering a trademark on your products name. Then other builds need to change the name if they want to publish releases. All of that is fine with the GPL, and is not depriving users from the source code.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
I don't have a problem with this business model - it seems interesting and I hope it works.
However, I hate it when people use the word "donation" to mean a mandatory payment. A donation is a voluntary gift.
By only providing the binaries to donors, it looks like you are only charging nontechnical users, while more technically inclined users get it for free.
which is in practice essentially the entire software industry + the pirate bay.
Admittedly there is a certain element of risk associated with using the pirate bay, but that doesn't seem to have acted as much of a deterrent, and the technical barriers between being able to build something from source and being able to download from TPB are quite a bit different, but now you're shifting tolerances around
And if you don't own a computer, you can't even get the source code. How unfair.
Think "car analogy" and you can fill in the blanks yourself.
This is how things work in the world; if you are an expert in a certain field, you'll benefit from being an expert in that field.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
This worked fine for me with PyKota and other printing utilities that I'm selling as binaries for a number of years now from http://www.pykota.com/
All my software is Free Software licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, and is freely available to all from subversion. People wanting tarballs or Debian packages can pay.
Additionally I used to sell support contracts and consulting work, but I had to stop when moving to another part of the world.
So yes it's a model which works. I don't have to rely on this for living though, since I've got an unrelated full time job, but if you can dedicate a lot of time to this and to make your software well known and respected (so I'm not talking about spam), you'll be able to get some profits with this model.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
"Sveasoft is a small company which makes its living by selling supported versions of Linux-based firmware for a number of wireless routers. Paying subscribers can download current versions of the firmware, which adds a number of features not normally found on those routers. They can grab updated versions as they become available, and participate in support forums as well.
Sveasoft's products are based on free software - Linux in particular. The company's approach to GPL compliance has raised eyebrows for a couple of years now. One tactic employed by the company has been to terminate support accounts for any subscriber who further redistributes the Sveasoft binaries or source. The GPL says that customers are entitled to that code (for the GPL-licensed portions of Sveasoft's products, at least), and that they have the right to pass it on to others. Sveasoft has responded that, when this redistribution happens, it is no longer obligated to provide future versions of the software. The company has employed various schemes for determining which subscriber has redistributed any particular version, and has been quite aggressive at shutting down accounts.", quoted from http://lwn.net/Articles/178550/
Additionally if it's his code, he can do whatever he wants to do with it; it's irrelevant that he's chosen to release all or just a part of the programs as GPL because he owns the code.
The NeoOffice project (more-or-less OS X native port of OpenOffice; deliberately not providing a link here because the stunt pulled by the devs at the beginning of 2012 makes them weasels in my book) recently switched to an arrangement similar to this, except those guys are far worse than the developer in TFA (who is actually being perfectly reasonable, IMHO). Essentially, the donation in this case buys you the time savings of not having to compile yourself, and some measure of assurance that the binary is compiled as intended by the developer. And if you're OK with setting up the build environment, running makefiles, and taking the time to run the build, then great.
The Neo binaries used to be free. Somewhere around the end of 2011/beginning of 2012, without warning, they started requiring money for binaries of the new major-version release (3.2.x). They didn't bother to disable the update check in the latest 3.1.x binaries, nor to modify it to say something like: "NOTE: subsequent updates will be pay only." The weaselly thing is that they describe this as a "voluntary donation" -- no kidding. You can't download the binaries (nor post to most of the forums) without a donation. All of which would be only mildly annoying if the source, which is available via anonymous CVS and includes the makefiles, were actually possible to build by following the published instructions. Unfortunately, it isn't: quite a few people have tried (myself included), and all independently arrived at the same conclusion, which is that the source will absolutely not build as published. (Search the macosx-talk archives and see for yourself.)
In short, it seems quite clear that the Neo devs are deliberately doing the absolute bare minimum to satisfy the GPL requirements (and to be able to use a ".org" domain, which may have significant tax implications) -- maybe not even that. I suspect they know damn well that the source won't build according to the instructions, even if you follow them to the letter. "Disingenuous" doesn't even begin to cover it.
By comparison, the developer in this case is being very transparent and upfront with his reasons and intentions. Kudos to him!
--Tim
AND, if you give them @OpenBSD money, they print your name on the CD cover, which makes you look Super Cool!!!
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
PyMol does this and its the de-facto standard in protein structure visualisation
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Sorry, I meant not the cover, the booklet. Don't want to mislead anyone aiming Super Cool status.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
You are right. I was thinking of that example myself. I had donated to NeoOffice once prior to the switch after using it a few times. I've actually paid twice since the switch, though less money. At this point of I just think of Neo-Office as inexpensive semi-commercial software. RedHat, JBOSS, Open-Xchange... use this model as well.
Anyway Neo is still a much better product than Open Office. There are some serious runtime bugs in Mac Base that Neo gets rid of that cost me several hours using OO.
>Which proves, once again, how stupid it is to use the GPL.
1. The article doesn't say he objects to other people building binaries. In fact, he realises this will happen and doesn't care.
2. The GPL does not forbid building binaries in exchange for cash. In fact, such services are encouraged.
3. Trying to turn this into a BSD vs GPL flamewar.
Your anti-GPL rant just demonstrates that you are about as intelligent as jerryleecooper.
--
BMO
He's presumably banking on a sufficient number of users being too dumb (or deciding it's not worth the effort) to find the precompiled/easily installed versions.
P.T. Barnum and I suspect he might be right.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Nah. Overrated means "I disagree". I'd use funny.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I have a beef with opinions such as yours. You seem to imply the value of having source code is one of having the regalities of a freeloader. That is to say, we must have the source code, so some dude who specializes in repackaging make us a nice binary, because all we care about is "apt-get install my-freeloading-shit".
To which I say: no! The value of source code is that if you would like to see the code, to learn how it was done, so that perhaps you can not only just use it, but contribute back, then you might want the source code. This "contract" may or may not make your life easy. The whole idea, when back in the BSD Unix days (the people who invented this open source thing), was one of learning and cooperation.
Now, if you think I'm some sort of idealist hippie neckbeard, then read my other post (the one in which I propose proprietary binaries + updates with source code with a BSD license - which would allow that, instead of the infamous GPL. This empowers the individual developer. Read: money.)
In fact, if the developer wants to makes some money off his own software (which might exclude install scripts and makefiles), then who is to say he can't put food on his table, because some free software freeloading unemployed student, living in his parent's home doesn't like it and think it goes against "freedom"?
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
You're on a roll.
Tell me, which of those categories is more numerous? Which would, due to their l334t sk1lz, figure out how get it for free anyway?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
By charging a small fee to those most likely to require technical support, it looks like you are covering your support costs in the most fair manner possible. Hmm?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Or, they do care and they wish to support the work.
If it wasn't for "laziness" we'd all be building our own computers, starting with copper ore and coal (I've always wondered how far one person could get...). "Laziness" is generally a good thing, it stops you expending energy and time on less productive things. I recently had to deal with a lot of JSON data (Facebook's gallery API), and while I could have sat down and mapped it all out I found it easier to use an online tool somebody has been good enough to provide for free. The tenth time I found myself using it I donated $5, totally worth it and I hope he enjoys the beer. It's hardly an unusual business model, take a look at the commercial level Linux distros for proof of that. My main client is "lazy" because he can't be bothered learning HTML and a bit of PHP/MySQL - I win because he pays me to do it, he wins because he can get on with running his business, playing golf, or whatever else he fancies.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
starting with copper ore and coal (I've always wondered how far one person could get...)
To a toaster at least. A British man did that in a documentary.
I would say such a model supports the spread of the ideology behind open source and open system even. You build your software (meaning the binaries) exactly the way you want them and every processor and system architecture is invited to the party.
In GPLv2 (perhaps not GPLv3) you can have the program open source, but keep the build scripts to yourself.
I'm glad you took the time to read the GPL before commenting:
In short, it seems quite clear that the Neo devs are deliberately doing the absolute bare minimum to satisfy the GPL requirements (and to be able to use a ".org" domain, which may have significant tax implications)
You don't have to meet requirements to have a .ORG domain anymore; commercial enterprises can register .ORG domains and use them.
If the developer is not providing the exact build scripts and exact source code,
then he is not following the GPL; the GPL requires that the exact source code (including all build scripts and build directions) be included.
"By only providing the binaries to donors, it looks like you are only charging nontechnical users, while more technically inclined users get it for free."
Technically inclined users don't just get it for free, they have to either pay for the binary, OR follow build instructions, and do all the work compile the binary their own, which depending if they did it properly or not might or might not match the developer's "blessed" binary
Their "Work" is a cost. Just like an auto mechanic changing their own oil to avoid paying the dealer fee for maintenance service is a cost.
Non-technically inclined users can either read the directions and attempt to learn while struggling through the build process, or they can pay a technically inclined person to do it for them --- but donating will probably be cheaper.
In all seriousness, I habitually refuse to fund any closed source software projects, but I'm not that great about donating to the open source ones that wish to run on donations either. I have however happily contributed to "compile it yourself if you want it free" projects.
I've moral problems with contributing to software that takes away my freedom, which prevents me from buying your closed source software, no matter what incentives you offer. If otoh I see the source code exists, then my moral objections won't prevent me from indulging in whatever conveniences you offer for a price.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
You are absolutely wrong, or Linux distributions would not be able to exist either. Last I checked Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, and many more all use this exact same model with GPL licensed source and binaries.
By the way, this is extremely similar to the way RedHat started making money. Provide the Distro but only give support and patches to those that pay. It's relatively recent that the model went all paid for, and it's been hurting their business so hopefully they move back to that model.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There are some kinds of software that don't need a lot of individualized support, such as video games. What revenue model would you recommend for an open-source game?
It's unfortunate it does not also say that these scripts should be fire-and-forget. Compiling some of the more complicated "GPL" projects is an exercise in frustration, requiring anything from specific OS versions, specific versions of build tools (that are no longer in repositories) and of course whining to the developers enough until they give in and tell you what is missing from their wiki compile-it-yourself page.
You can't download the binaries (nor post to most of the forums) without a donation.
And what prevents you from distributing the binaries under the GPL? Is this forbidden?
At any rate, I've found LibreOffice to work just fine on my MacBook, and I would suggest others who are disappointed with NeoOffice's bone-headed move switch over as well. This, BTW, from one who truly donated voluntarily to NeoOffice...
or, you get a supported distribution with someone to point a finger at (see RedHat's enterprise model) There's definitely people that will support this model and not roll their own binaries. I think it will become more common in certain areas.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Instead of donations, he should just put a price tag on the binaries - one that he thinks is reasonable, and has a good chance of covering his expenses. In other words, downright sell the stuff.
Actually, why even do that? He only 'owes' the source code to people who get the software from him - either paid, or unpaid. So what he could do - sell it like he does normal proprietary software, but in compliance w/ the GPL or any other open source license in that the source code always accompanies the binaries, along w/ the full installers. That way, no need to run afoul of even a GPL3.
But the real problem, as others pointed out, is the 'help your neighbor' anti-business provision of the GNU freedoms, where others could compile the stuff and distribute it for free. Get rid of #2, and a part of #3, and GNU would be just perfect.
LibreOffice works really well on Mac, in my experience.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
If YOU were the copyright holder why would YOU need to abide by these terms?
You wouldn't, as long as you don't mind having to do all the development work yourself, rather than working with a community of developers. As soon as you merge other people's patches, you're bound by the terms of the license.
In short, it seems quite clear that the Neo devs are deliberately doing the absolute bare minimum to satisfy the GPL requirements (and to be able to use a ".org" domain, which may have significant tax implications)
I'm not an expert on domain names, but I'm pretty sure that anyone can get a .org domain if they want, and I don't think there's any requirements about being a non-profit nor are there any tax implications involved. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. My first employer out of college, a small 50-person company, had (and still has) a .org domain for their website, probably because the equivalent .com was already taken. This was way back in the late 90s too. As far as I can tell, at least in the last 15 years, there's been no real policing of domain names so that only non-profits and the like can get .orgs, even though it seems fairly obvious that this was the original intention. It's too bad, though, since I think it was a good idea, but the whole domain-name system is screwed to hell these days, not only with .com, .org, and .net all being interchangeable, then later with stupid extensions like .biz and .info, and now with total anarchy with any extension at all being allowed.