SourceXchange goes into beta

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.

Comments

Re:Not the right way to do this

[Progman]

[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.

Re:Not the right way to do this

[lisa]

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

Re:Not the right way to do this

[Bruce Perens]

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

Great!! Now we can get paid for work done

[Flak]

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.

Re:Good AND Bad??

[El Volio]

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.

Re:What if Microsoft hires away these OSS develope

[Shoeboy]

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

With money comes accountability

[QBobWatson]

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

Not the right way to do this

[Bruce Perens]

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.

See earlier discussion on this topic

[Kurt Gray]

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.

Re:Grants probably not deductible

[Bruce Perens]

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.

CoSource's model looks much better

[Pascal Q. Porcupine]

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.