Re:Isn't this nearly the same as a patent?
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 1
You are missing that patents are strictly time-based. Ransom also adds amount-based, as well. This means that there are *two* limits that can be reached for the product to go open & free: time *OR* money. You can think of this as a patent of sorts (roughly), but a patent that expires once the owner has made some amount of money (such as $500, or $15000 or whatever). Unlike a patent which keeps on accumulating money until the time limit runs out.
Re:Ransom model (or the Gravel State lie)
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I am wanting to make sure that the Ransom model is not something that can turn into a moving target, by making sure all parties are legally bound (even if it is with something as simple as a copyright license) to go with the original terms. I'm also working on building some well-defined "official" licenses for use, so people know exactly what they are getting themselves into.
Hi there. Thanks for the comment. I'll disagree (of course:-), but as one calm, sane debater to another:-)
First, I guess there are three ways of distributing the restricted software before it is freed: * Completely free (as in beer), and asks for $$ here and there. * Shareware-like (30/60/90 day trial and then you must/should pay). * Traditional "you pay first, then you get something to use" model.
My faves are #1 and #2, of course:)
and as long as the restrictive license allows it, users are free to not pay anything. I expect most of the $$ to come from satisfied corporate customers, distributors/resellers (like Red Hat), and your standard donator.
Step #8 should not be there. Looks like someone decided to "add" that just before it got/.ed.:-)
One of the drawbacks of having a Wiki, but then I knew what I was getting myself into in the first place with it. This will be a good test of "community":-)
Re:potential solutions to the main problems
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 1
Yes, exactly to #1 & #2. You've hit it on the head. Not sure about #3, though... I sure do get a kick every time I see that name:-)
yep, exactly. While the Ransom model itself is not enforcing a third-party escrow service, it will likely become the most common way to do the transactions. One has already started up at http://ransom.tekrat.com in fact.
Vaporware can't happen in Ransom because *something* has to be released. Usually this will be a binary version of the software, stable and featured enough for people to drool over it.
Under the Ransom model, a developer can't *not* release something and call it "Ransom" as per this model here.
Well, I don't think Ransom is going to replace open source software in any way. I think people who try that will fail. Ransom will be used in two areas: * Currently proprietary software that can be freed by using the Ransom model to compensate the original developers. * Projects that *could* be done as open source, but for one financial reason or another this would be infeasible, and so a "middle ground" solution needs to be used.
Yes, exactly. Once this mandatory time frame passes, it becomes free anyway. Now, as has been stated, this time can be pretty large, nothing stopping that except market forces and irritated users (oh, and the copyright law limit which never seems to expire anyway).
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).
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.:-)
As someone else mentioned above, there is nothing preventing the source code from being publically viewable. After all, it is the *rights* to the source code which are restricted under Ransom. That means that people could freely view and even modify the source code, as long as they didn't redistribute in any fashion. The details depend on what the developer puts in the Ransom (restricted) License.
Re:open source software eats programmer jobs
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
Well, I don't think changing opinions is a bad thing, as long as you actually *do* stand for something in between changes. Not only does the process of learning work this way, but I see the nature of open source is to encourage experimentation and trying new things. "Work from many angles, see which one is the best in the end", right?
Now, what I agree with you on is when so many people are just plain "wishy-washy" on issues, and say "yes" to everyone to try and be better liked. Hmm... I just described every politician I've ever seen....
Re:Ransom is such a negative word
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Others have brought up the negative connotations about the name, but far more have liked it. I personally like the name because it makes people stop and look, and because it is so bold it actually comes off as being a bit goofy of a name. Also, it very appropriately describes the entire process in one simple word. How many other projects can claim that?:-)
Besides, end users are not likely to ever see the term "Ransom". I expect this model will mostly be seen and used by the developers and their sponsors, investors, and distributors/resellers (to use those terms loosely).
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing that patents are strictly time-based. Ransom also adds amount-based, as well. This means that there are *two* limits that can be reached for the product to go open & free: time *OR* money. You can think of this as a patent of sorts (roughly), but a patent that expires once the owner has made some amount of money (such as $500, or $15000 or whatever). Unlike a patent which keeps on accumulating money until the time limit runs out.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I am wanting to make sure that the Ransom model is not something that can turn into a moving target, by making sure all parties are legally bound (even if it is with something as simple as a copyright license) to go with the original terms. I'm also working on building some well-defined "official" licenses for use, so people know exactly what they are getting themselves into.
Woa, fella. /me holds up his hands, backs away.
:-) :-)
Calm, down. If it makes you feel any better, it's just my last name. Hmm... and what's with the white foam around your mouth, you feeling OK?
Hi there. Thanks for the comment. I'll disagree (of course :-), but as one calm, sane debater to another :-)
:)
First, I guess there are three ways of distributing the restricted software before it is freed:
* Completely free (as in beer), and asks for $$ here and there.
* Shareware-like (30/60/90 day trial and then you must/should pay).
* Traditional "you pay first, then you get something to use" model.
My faves are #1 and #2, of course
and as long as the restrictive license allows it, users are free to not pay anything. I expect most of the $$ to come from satisfied corporate customers, distributors/resellers (like Red Hat), and your standard donator.
Step #8 should not be there. Looks like someone decided to "add" that just before it got /.ed. :-)
:-)
One of the drawbacks of having a Wiki, but then I knew what I was getting myself into in the first place with it. This will be a good test of "community"
Yes, exactly to #1 & #2. You've hit it on the head. Not sure about #3, though... I sure do get a kick every time I see that name :-)
yep, exactly. While the Ransom model itself is not enforcing a third-party escrow service, it will likely become the most common way to do the transactions. One has already started up at http://ransom.tekrat.com in fact.
No, not correct, I have to point out.
Vaporware can't happen in Ransom because *something* has to be released. Usually this will be a binary version of the software, stable and featured enough for people to drool over it.
Under the Ransom model, a developer can't *not* release something and call it "Ransom" as per this model here.
Well, I don't think Ransom is going to replace open source software in any way. I think people who try that will fail. Ransom will be used in two areas:
* Currently proprietary software that can be freed by using the Ransom model to compensate the original developers.
* Projects that *could* be done as open source, but for one financial reason or another this would be infeasible, and so a "middle ground" solution needs to be used.
Yes, exactly. Once this mandatory time frame passes, it becomes free anyway. Now, as has been stated, this time can be pretty large, nothing stopping that except market forces and irritated users (oh, and the copyright law limit which never seems to expire anyway).
Yep, I'm planning to get some people from Blender over on the list to share their experiences, now that I've learned of the project. Thanks :)
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).
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. :-)
As someone else mentioned above, there is nothing preventing the source code from being publically viewable. After all, it is the *rights* to the source code which are restricted under Ransom. That means that people could freely view and even modify the source code, as long as they didn't redistribute in any fashion. The details depend on what the developer puts in the Ransom (restricted) License.
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.
Well, I don't think changing opinions is a bad thing, as long as you actually *do* stand for something in between changes. Not only does the process of learning work this way, but I see the nature of open source is to encourage experimentation and trying new things. "Work from many angles, see which one is the best in the end", right?
Now, what I agree with you on is when so many people are just plain "wishy-washy" on issues, and say "yes" to everyone to try and be better liked. Hmm... I just described every politician I've ever seen....
Others have brought up the negative connotations about the name, but far more have liked it. I personally like the name because it makes people stop and look, and because it is so bold it actually comes off as being a bit goofy of a name. Also, it very appropriately describes the entire process in one simple word. How many other projects can claim that? :-)
Besides, end users are not likely to ever see the term "Ransom". I expect this model will mostly be seen and used by the developers and their sponsors, investors, and distributors/resellers (to use those terms loosely).