Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SourceXchange goes into beta

Posted by Hemos on from the come-make-yer-money dept.

EEPROM writes "SourceXchange is now officially in beta and is accepting developer registrations. You can register here. " Excellent idea on a way to get Open Source developers paid-check out CoSource for another interesting model.

40 comments

  1. US only by wangi · · Score: 1

    An important thing to remember is that sXc is currently only open to US citizens (well those who can get a US tax code).

    The web site does state this and indeed goes on to say that they are trying to extend the scheme to other countries and tax systems.

    Really this is a major headache for this sort of operation and the developers too - sXc get bogged down in paperwork and the developers have to file more tax returns...

    It's too complex and boring!

  2. Re:Lowballing could be a problem by DukeTuring · · Score: 1
    On the other hand, if it could be done by a group of students for $200, then it would'nt certainly be worth the time of a highly-paid, super-expert guru, wouldn't it?

    If the sponsor really thought it needed a high quality, highly reliable piece of software with the same quality as they would expect as one in written in a "corporate environment", then I would expect that they would pay comparable amounts to what they would normally spend anyway...

    BTW, This is not to say that open source software is not of the same quality as software written in "corporate enviroments", its just to say that the sponsors should expect commensurate effort for commensurate rewards...

    I personally think it's all going to balance out in the end. The important thing is not to pre-judge it but to give it a chance to work itself out...

  3. Re:Not the right way to do this by Progman · · Score: 2

    [Bruce Perens] For example, there's that situation with Perl: the software's Open Source, but the official reference manual is proprietary to O'Reilly. How open is it really if the documentation is closed?

    That's not exactly correct. Although the Camel is definitely an authoritative book on Perl, it isn't the official reference manual. The latter is bundled with Perl (type perldoc to find it). It's also published in various formats on CPAN. It documents the latest stable release, unlike the Camel.

  4. Cool by Core+Dump · · Score: 1

    I think it's high time that there was a network of OSS developers. A great way for us to get in touch w/ each other too.

    But why can't they just use AOL Insta*oops* :)


    I think you can figure out how to email me ;)
    --
    I think you can figure out how to email me ;)
    PGP Key:
    1. Re:Cool by warmi · · Score: 1

      There is already one. It is called The Internet.

  5. Re:Not the right way to do this by lisa · · Score: 2
    Non-profit organizations like FSF and SPI are better suited for the job of brokering free-software work, from a financial standpoint and a public responsibility standpoint as well.

    I agree. However, I have yet to hear of either of these organizations taking up this role.

    The argument seems a little illogical to me to say that this project is starting out on the wrong foot because 2 other organizations you mention could do a better job. Especially when taken into account that neither of them *have* done this job.

    It does, however, make sense to say that they are starting out on the wrong foot just for being for-profit.

    Otherwise, I heartily agree with the rest.

    -Lisa

  6. Re:Not the right way to do this by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

    Well, obviously we need to convince one of the non-profits to do this. I know just who to talk with...

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  7. Re:Not the right way to do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is an interesting comment

    [Hop-Frog] I disagree with your example, here. I'm not going to say O'Reilly is any sort of an OS citizen (good or bad), but I see having a book as just another way to provide support for OSS (in fact, it seems just like Cygnus or LinuxCare to me). Can you say that it was O'Reilly and not Larry Wall that wanted the book to be "closed"? Also, this doesn't prevent us from having an open Perl book. Would we even have a book if Mr. Wall didn't go to O'Reilly? If so, then we should see one written, soon. ;-)

    Lets say that Mr Wall did go to O'Reilly. That means the only way to make money is to use open source as a sideline. The main profit maker is closed source.

    Folks open source is a dud. There have been other places where it has been tried and open source is not a money maker, when it is the primary income.

    Open source works to a degree because it has the hacker effect. But to run a business forget it. There is NO business model...

  8. Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done by SimonK · · Score: 1

    No. SourceXChange and similar almost certainly require you to take responsibility for work you contract to perform, or supply to them for use for a particular purpose.

    The GPL's disownment of warranties is probably OK in most jurisdictions because the author genuinely did not supply the software to you for any particular purpose, and you did not pay money or enter into a contract in any other way.

  9. O'Reilly Books are written by people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When somebody is telling me about a great book they've read or are reading, one of the details they rarely tell me is who's publishing it. In fact, before I got involved with computers, I didn't think anybody cared who published a book.

    When you accuse O'Reilly of being a bad open source citizen, you have to realize that every O'Reilly book is written by a person, and that person had an opportunity to make their book open source. And more importantly, you need to realize that the author decided not to make their book open source, they decided to have it published in a more conventional manner.

    In the example you use of Perl, it's not O'Reilly's fault that the officially reference manual is proprietary, it's the authors'. They chose to publish it through O'Reilly, knowing that would mean it was proprietary. They were the ones not being "good citizens of the Open Source community" (in your opinion, not mine).

    Having said that, I agree with you that non-profit organizations would be better suited to do the job. Although I don't like the idea of bounties for software much at all.

    1. Re:O'Reilly Books are written by people. by Mithrandir · · Score: 1
      In the example you use of Perl, it's not O'Reilly's fault that the officially reference manual is proprietary, it's the authors'. They chose to publish it through O'Reilly, knowing that would mean it was proprietary. They were the ones not being "good citizens of the Open Source community" (in your opinion, not mine).

      As an author and a coder I'd have to partially disagree with this.

      By far the majority of computer books that are written come from an idea from the publisher. That is, the publisher will have an idea for a brand of book (eg the Dummies series) and then develop titles for it. This is usually done in conjunction with someone knowledgable in that area (usually the writer of the first book). The various titles are developed, a rough outline of the topic coverage and a list of potential authors. At this point, the development editor(s) (sometimes called acqusition editors) will start recruiting writers either by direct contact or through an agency. Now, if you approach the publisher first with a completely outlined, highly detailed (and preferably at least half written) book, then you have some good cause to ask for a different copyright scheme. A lot of the time you will get it too - it just depends on who the publisher is (O'Reilly is much more favorable to this than say Addison-Wesley).

      Once an interested author has been found, the title is then developed to a much finer detail with the development editor etc until it is passed of to the series editor, tech editors etc for the actual writing.

      Now the writer has a fair say in what happens with the book, but in general it doesn't go to the extents of saying "how would you like to license this book?". The publisher owns the copyrights on the basis that they solicited the work from you, not you proposing the work to them. Depending on your status as an author (prior recognition in your community etc) you can negotiate a reasonable degree of freedom. For example, I always get a release for all of the code (non-exclusive rights for redistribution yada yada yada...). This allows me to publish and further develop the code from the book as Open Source (usually LGPL'd because it is library type code). One of the benefits of this is that it helps to further enhance the author's reputation and also sells a lot more copies of the books.

      (Side note: I've recently been contacted by a publisher that wants to do a Linux book under the Open Content licensing scheme. That was one of the first things they stated, so it does happen).

      To prevent a few further comments - This code is all Java stuff or VRML. The documentation is always freely available online. What the book gives the reader is many of the inside tips of why things were done in certain ways. At least in my approach to writing I use the book to teach people how to approach designing stuff using the language APIs given to develop various types of libraries. I then proceed to develop a particular library, which is what ends up being the OSS product I put on my website. The book is not the design documentation or official API guide, but a way of approaching design philosophically. From most of the authors that I chat with, this is typically the case. The big exception to the rule is the "Bible" or "Nutshell" books that are just API references with a bit of extra stuff thrown in.

      --
      Life is complete only for brief intervals in between toys or projects -- John Dalton
  10. Free Software Bazaar: grass roots alternative by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
    Please note that the Free Software Bazaar is a grass roots no-profit alternative to Source Exchange and Cosource which has a much lower overhead and more offers of money for code.

    The Free Software Bazaar also is open to developers from all nationalities, so please check it out.

    Axel

    --

  11. Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get one of the "How to" books for your state if you do it again. For example, one I have on my shelf now has the title "Starting & operating a business in Maryland", though there's another one I must have lent out with a cover like a stock certificate. ("How to incorporate in Maryland" or some such.)

    (More info for lurkers...)

    The books are basically the same for each state, but include a few important -- and short -- pages that are state specific. They tell you exactly where to go including the street, building, and room number and a few sample forms so you can fill them out.

    The default corporation is a C corporation; just like any big stock company with more than 35 (32? 36?) shareholders. You do have to file a form to switch to an S corporation if you want to avoid having to file as much paper work. Basically, the smaller the company the more likely you want an S corp over a full C corp...though there are other reasons besides size that you might opt for one over the other.

    Switching from a C to an S after operating as a C is not always automatic, so do it quick if you think an S is what you want. Switching to a C from an S is much easier, so if you goof in this direction it's easy to correct in most cases.

  12. After you spend the $1000 to form a corporation by rowland · · Score: 1
    after you spend the $1000 to form a corporation...

    ...you discover that you're still liable like a sole proprietorship until you hire your first employee. That's the magic number: 1 employee.

    Suddenly it's a lot more expensive to incorporate for the purpose of evading liability.

    Rowland
    --
    100,000 lemmings can't all be wrong.
  13. Grants probably not deductible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A donation would be tax deductible. A grant, which you give to promote a certain software project wouldn't be. Unless you pay much more than it is worth. (tough to figure)

    1. Re:Grants probably not deductible by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      Don't give up so quickly. The software is clearly going to benefit the public, and charitable donations earmarked for a particular project are very common. It's clearly within the domain of a 501(c)3, and in fact this is one of the things that SPI was supposed to do when we founded it.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  14. Good AND Bad?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's great in that it provides such oppertunities for developers. However.. might it not be bad in swaying some developers away from your average Open Source project that can't give cash? I suppose it comes down to the basic motivation.. so perhaps then there won't be less coders for no-budget projects.

    - Ultimate Anonymous Coward

    1. Re:Good AND Bad?? by El+Volio · · Score: 2

      I would tend to think that cool or really useful projects will still attract developers. Several of these types of projects have been around for a while, and Open Source is still doing fine.

      The money will basically end up as a perk for some developers, although obviously in some cases projects will get better talent than they might have otherwise. IOW, it'll have an effect, but I can't see it devastating Open Source, since (as you pointed out) the "basic motivation" for such coders isn't money.

      --

      "You can never have too many elephants on your team."

  15. Great!! Now we can get paid for work done by Flak · · Score: 3


    I have often wondered if I would see a dime from adding my 5000 lines of code to this or that project. Now if I can work real hard, I can quit my day job and work from my home office. Wait, what happens if I miss a bug and I deliver M$ quality software? Does this mean I have to form a class C corp., so I can be protected by the law of the land if I screw up? I sure does. If anyone out there signs up. Do it after you spend the $1000 to form a corporation. Your code could get you in trouble with some BIG money organization if you fail to perform to what they consider the standard. I know that good code in my eyes (and everyone else's) could be crap to a big company desk jockey that does not know the difference between stack and heap memory.

    1. Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done by Flak · · Score: 1

      Damn you are lucky After the hours spent filling out the papers, and then having my lawyer make sure ($500)I did not screw up and the fees (around $500) to file with the state and fed for the corp it self and the biz name. it comes out to around $1000 plus my time. Ohh I'm in Washington state so...

    2. Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done by Martin+Foster · · Score: 1

      As I remember open source licenses such as the GPL and LGPL include a clause stating that the program does not come with any warranty or guarantees of it's operations.

      Would this not protect the author from a lawsuit over the quality of the code when the GPL, LGPL or similar is attached to the source code?

      And SourceXchange promptes the open source development model. So one would assume that many of the finished projects will be GPLd.

    3. Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done by Lando · · Score: 1
      Do it after you spend the $1000 to form a corporation.

      I'm not sure whether or not a corporation is required, however just in case anyone is interested basic registration costs of an corporation are only about $250.00

      Consulting with a lawyer and having him/her draw up the contracts and submit the paperwork may cost you $1000 or even more, but if you take a little time to investigate and contact your state attorney general's office, or at least I think it's the attorney general, the proceedure is actually pretty easy.

      As a matter of fact, a number of states have implemented websites to automate most of the work. A user logs on fills out the paperwork online and then prints out the form. After that it is merely a matter of sticking the form in the mail and attaching a stamp.

      Lando

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    4. Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that it would cost $1000 to set up a corporation in the U.S.. Maybe in other countries? Anyone want to comment on thier own country?

      I've set up 2 and each time it took a few hours of time + about $90 -- for that day registration. If I wanted, I could save a few $$ to wait a week for the papers to come back. The paper work after setting it up is a pain, though.

      Expect mistakes from both the feds and state governments...and just deal with them. Your tax dollars at work...

    5. Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Usually (in the non-open source custom application development world) you build a application according to a certain set of requirements or specification(s) that you decide on with your potential customer.

      Sometimes your customer is a particular company and sometimes it is a target market user profile handed to you by a pointy haired marketer.

      Usually after developing a peice of software you do some testing, you identify any bugs you can (a "bug" is defined as anything that differs from the original specification, whether its a feature or a nasty bug that crashes your computer) and then you hand it to your customer.

      Then the customer does testing before they operationally accept your application, if they accept it -- they own it its out of your hands. They can decide not to accept it /if/ it does not match the requirements that you mutually agreed on.

      This is how I've done it in the past. This is probably a good way to handle any custom app development.

      Sorry for the crappy spelling :P

    6. Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done by Flak · · Score: 1

      Who would bet that their brand spanking new Class C corp is legal if they did everything themselves. The whole idea is give yourself some protection not open yourself to even more chances to stand in court for zero reason but you thought it would be cool to have your company named SUN Software just like the Unix company...Or Irix Software or gee I am going to name it MacDonalds

  16. Liability by Shoeboy · · Score: 1

    Fortunately, If you do get sued by the company you develop the OSS for, sourceXchange is not liable for any sum greater than the amount you get paid by them. So you may get taken to the cleaners, but they won't. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
    --Shoeboy

    1. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you've missed the point.


      sXc is the middleman. You don't have a contract
      with the Company you develop for, just with sXc.
      So unless sXc sues you, you shouldn't have any
      liability.


      FWIW, I still think that the sXc contract language
      needs to be rewritten. To build this market sXc
      IMHO needs to accept quite a bit more of the risk.

  17. I can't live with clause 10.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're asking the developer to accept liability for any patent issues. I know it sort of says only if you knew about it, but the legal system tends to assume things that aren't true. I'm not going to risk liability for patents, no way, no how, never.

  18. Re:What if Microsoft hires away these OSS develope by Shoeboy · · Score: 3

    Wow, for a while there I was concerned about the problem you expressed in the subject line. Fortunately your cogent, tightly reasoned arguements have convinced me that my fears are groundless.
    --Shoeboy

  19. With money comes accountability by QBobWatson · · Score: 2

    Exactly -- what I always liked about open source was the complete lack of accountability (other than one's reputation being based on one's code). Once you start getting paid, you all of a sudden have much less freedom in what you write, because the goal has changed -- you're trying to make a company happy, not code what you're really enthusiastic about. Coding for its own sake is the real basis of open source -- sXc is just a better way for freelance programmers to find work.
    Joe Rabinoff

  20. What will the result be...? by Disco+Stu · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm just too skeptical...but I'm not about to quit my job and start developing OSS.

    However, I think the source exchange will be A Good Thing(tm). For example, imagine a developer toying with the idea of a certain project, but wondering if it will be worth the trouble. That extra dough could be enough motivation. Or imagine a developer who has created a hack for her own use, but it's still not very robust, and she doesn't really feel like releasing it. Then she sees that company X is willing to pay $200 for it. That could be enough to convince her to clean up the bugs and release it. At any rate, I don't think this will hurt OSS, but I doubt that it will revolutionize it either.

  21. Source Exchange? No thanks. by nickm · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I refuse to give them marketing information. Ever look at the license? This whole system is like your typical Safeway Club Card. Whole-lotta savings, but wait 'til the spam arrives.
    --
    I noticed

    --

    --
    I noticed

    It's getting about time to leave everywhere

  22. Not the right way to do this by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4
    I think they are all starting out on the wrong foot. Non-profit organizations like FSF and SPI are better suited for the job of brokering free-software work, from a financial standpoint and a public responsibility standpoint as well.

    The commercial Open Source clearing houses claim to be "more professional", but that's a red herring. A non-profit can contract the same consultants and reviewers that the commercial companies would. I'm also concerned that some of the commercial clearing houses have a vested interest in steering grants away from the non-profits who have done so much great work for us.

    For an individual donor in the U.S, a non-profit organization with "501(c)3" tax status is up to 33% more effective per dollar spent. When I give FSF or SPI a grant, I can write the amount of of my income on my federal taxes. I get up to 1/3 back, and I can use that to fund more Open Source projects.

    Then there's the responsibility issue: we know that FSF and SPI will run their projects for the benefit of the community. We can't say the same about the for-profits, they'll try to do the right thing when they can afford it and they'll put some free software pundits on their boards to appease us. I'm also concerned about some of the companies involved. For example, SourceXChange is an O'Reilly and Associates project, and O'Reilly's not, in my opinion, a good citizen of the Open Source community. For example, there's that situation with Perl: the software's Open Source, but the official reference manual is proprietary to O'Reilly. How open is it really if the documentation is closed? Do we want that to be the case with more software? Other publishers seem much more willing or able to get documentation with Open Source licenses produced while still paying their authors.

    So, I think that this is a situation that merits careful watching. I personally am not going to register as a developer with any of these organizations until I know a lot more about them, and my donations will go to non-profit grants rather than commercially-mediated sponsorships. I'm also sponsoring net domains and offering hosting services to some free software projects to help them keep going without a budget.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:Not the right way to do this by Chris+Siegler · · Score: 1

      Then there's the responsibility issue: we know that FSF and SPI will run their projects for the benefit of the community. We can't say the same about the for-profits, they'll try to do the right thing when they can afford it and they'll put some free software pundits on their boards to appease us

      I don't understand what you're worried about. The reason that sourceXchange was formed seems clear: from Brian,

      "All too often a great idea will come up while developing Apache and disappear because there is no one with the time to work on it...

      In other words, to fill the gaps where free software doesn't work very well.

      And it wont work if everybody isn't happy. If the sponsor, or the developer, or the peers don't like the situation, they can just say, "later dude!" and leave. Too many people leave, word gets around, and no more sourceXchange.

  23. work for hire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The trick is to get the user base to pay you for the effort, rather than try to sell the result (without imposing false scarcity). What's needed is connecting the potential users, having them negotiate what they all need, and getting commitments to pay. The users can even be vigorous competitors, as long as they don't want to compete on exclusive posession of this software-to-be.

  24. See earlier discussion on this topic by Kurt+Gray · · Score: 2

    SourceXchange and CoSourse were already discussed here on /. over a month ago and I think the consensus was that this is a noble idea but not in synch with what drives the open source movement.

  25. *cough*CoSource*cough* by Anonymous+Cow · · Score: 1

    I just got some e-mail from CoSource (see http://www.cosource.com/) saying their beta just went live, too. For those of you who've been hiding under a rock, CoSource and sourceXchange are very similar, but CoSource is a bit more informal (e.g. there's not usually just one mega investor, it's usually lots of us "unwashed Linux masses" who each front up a small amount of cash).

  26. $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've signed up for SourcExchange. Let me put it this way.. if I'm competing against student developers who think $200 is a lot of money, I'll just leave.

    $5000 is really not that much for a contract when you consider the issue of liability, contract spin-up time, and the time put in landing the contract in the first place. Has anyone actually read the process that developers have to go through? You have to _write up a proposal_ in the first place to even get a chance at the contract. That could be a lot of work.

    They will have to put in checks and balances to ensure that lowballers don't screw things up for everyone.

  27. Lowballing could be a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've signed up for SourcExchange. Let me put it this way... if I'm competing against student developers who think $200 is a lot of money, I'll just leave.

    $5000 is really not that much for a contract when you consider the issue of liability, contract spin-up time, and the time put in landing the contract in the first place. Has anyone actually read the process that developers have to go through? You have to _write up a proposal_ in the first place to even get a chance at the contract. That could be a lot of work.

    They will have to put in checks and balances to ensure that lowballers don't screw things up for everyone.

  28. CoSource's model looks much better by Pascal+Q.+Porcupine · · Score: 3

    Here's the text from CoSource's webpage:

    It Worked!

    If you can see this, it means that the installation of the Apache software on this Red Hat Linux system was successful. You may now add content to this directory and replace this page.

    If you are seeing this instead of the content you expected, please contact the administrator of the site involved. If you send mail about this to the authors of the Apache software or Red Hat Software, who almost certainly have nothing to do with this site, your message will be ignored.

    The Apache documentation has been included with this distribution.

    For documentation and information on Red Hat Linux, please visit the web site of Red Hat Software. The manual for Red Hat Linux is available here.

    You are free to use the image below on an Apache-powered web server. Thanks for using Apache!

    Man, that's just inspired... Oh, and then the last bit, which I really like...

    You are free to use the image below on a Red Hat Linux-powered web server. Thanks for using Red Hat Linux!


    ---
    "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
    --
    "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
    Quine "quine?