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?"
He says in the post that others can do this and that he has no problem with it.
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."
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)...
I don't have time to write my own make files to get the thing working.
So you're too cheap to give some money to the person who's offering to do all that work for you?
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
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.
so what? smaller paying userbase is better than larger nonpaying one, IF your goal is to make money. but some of us have other goals with the software we give away.
And if you don't own a computer, you can't even get the source code. How unfair.
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
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
>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
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.
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: