Re:Royalties via Collection and Distribution pts
on
Funding Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
Pondering this, I have realized that there may be a powerful way to incent developers to fix bugs and add features using this system as well.
Consider the possibility of this system allowing funders (purchasers, donaters, etc..) to optionally make their payment conditional upon a milestone. The payor would pay immediately, but the funds would be held in escrow (perhaps after some time limit, like 2 years, the conditions of this type of funding would be that if the milestones have not been reached, the funds would be released to the general pool [e.g. distributed evenly to all projects]).
The milestones could be bug-fixes, added features, documentation, or whatever. Developers could log-in and get a list of milestone requests and "bounties" on those requests. There would be a direct financial incentive for said developers to complete the work, because the funds associated with those milestones would be released upon completion (community vote re: milestone being met). The fund distribution would occur in the same way as the general model (e.g. dependency splits would still be honored), etc..
Using this technique, it may also be possible to allow independent developers (not generally associated with a project) to hop in and do a bit of paid work on a project as well. Brings new meaning to the term "contract programmer", methinks... An interesting twist, with some complications (again), but it could certainly be flushed out...
Re:Royalties via Collection and Distribution pts
on
Funding Open Source?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A big project shouldn't lose half it's revenues for using one tiny library.
Yea, I have been struggling with this myself. But there are some real dangers to doing it differently. Consider:
* If you allow voting or other methods to change the split between project and dependencies based on how many dependencies are used, then there will be more incentive for projects to re-create libraries that they would ordinarily just use. If the split (50/50, 60/40, whatever) cannot change (same for all projects, all the time), then everyone will just accept it and since there is no incentive to recreate the wheel, will use existing libraries - which we want, right?
* On the other hand, uber-succesful projects will grossly over-reward dependencies which may cause some disagreeable things to happen (such as projects writing competing libraries or changing libraries to someone that they like). I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, but it would definitely happen. On the other hand, it will create more competition between libraries which will result in better libraries!!
* If you consider that we always use dependencies (often many, many of them), that those dependencies deserve compensation and you realize that getting 50% of something (maybe even alot) is better than 100% of nothing (or a little bit), I think this idea starts to make more sense. Introducing wiggle room in splits would introduce greed into the equation. I think we want to stop that from happening.
Perhaps once a project reaches a certain level of success (e.g. money pouring in), split adjustments should be allowed by the community or perhaps follow some normalized degrading slope to more highly reward that project than it's dependencies. Maybe there could be maturity classifications for projects, each with a slightly different split, and the community could vote on which classification the project falls into. These are definitely the types of issues that would need flushing out.
Ultimately, such a beast would require delicate social management because the methodologies employed to split revenues would have dramatic influences on the manner in which open-source gets developed once such a system was bringing in the money.
It's a win-win for corporations. They can place the unprofitable portions of their business into the nonprofit.
Here here!! It's also a win-win for society, because, much like scientific research in academia, the end result is to add to the body of publicly available knowledge (in this case, open source).
It will be interesting to see how long it takes legislators to wake up to this, and call for charitable org reform. I wager that at least one generation (20 years) will pass and get fat off these exemptions before anything happens.
Who's to say that there is anything wrong with this idea? Frankly, if the public is receiving a service (open-source) then the backers should receive some tax protection.
Thanks for pointing out the idea of companies spinning out open-source divisions to use as tax-shelters and eliminate some software development costs. Brilliant idea and good post!
Re:Napster--Quintessentially Dot-bomb?
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
VC: Here's a truckload of money.
This is funny. But it's funny because of how ludicrous it is. Anyone who has any experience with the venture community knows in their bones that if they are willing to sign a deal with you, you either have something so good that you don't need them OR (More likely), you are about to become someone's bitch.
Let me be more clear. If a VC gives you money, that VC expects to do one of (A) Grow you and sell you off (flip you) to someone that they already know will be interested, or (B) Use you to achieve some sinister goal for some rich patron, or (C) Use you in some diabolical scheme to get press or assist in some other manner to raise the value of one of their other investments, or (D) Use you as leverage to get what they want in another deal (e.g. corporate extortion)...
The reason the dotBomb thing happened had nothing to do with stupid VCs with lots of cash. It had everything to do with a house of cards created through investments that existed to create bargaining leverage. As the economy unwound, the delicate balance of artificial deal leverage in the tech economy becan to collapse, causing a chain reaction that brought the whole friggen house down...
Royalties via Collection and Distribution pts
on
Funding Open Source?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I have been thinking on this problem quite a bit lately.
Consider the following:
Company XYZ launches an OSDN like websight that maintains a dependency graph of open-source projects (e.g. FOO project depends on code from X,Y,Z and libraries V,W).
The community can vote on and manage those dependencies and their relative importance. Any entry in the project database only lists it's direct dependencies (which themselves may have others). The system will self-organize and may require some interesting checks and balances but could be done.
The system perhaps begins as a donation website to "donate" to projects that you want to support, but could very quickly mobilize marketing to lobby companies that use projects to donate to those projects, etc...
The company running the website takes a commission from every "donation" or payment. We want this. This incents that company to continue and keeps it in business.
The balance after the commission is split 50% / 50% between the project principals and the dependencies. The 50% going to the dependencies is split according to the voted importance of those dependencies on the project. For each dependency, 50% is taken for that project and the other 50% split amongst it's dependencies,.. ad infinitum (until we cannot split anymore [1 penny] or dependencies run out).
All proceeds that go to project principals are really just numbers in accounts on the website associated with open-source projects, and while eventually it may make sense to do further breakdowns according to project members, in the beginning, the company running the website could just issue a check on a periodic basis to whomever the agreed-upon organization or person is that is associated with that project.
If you allow this model to evolve over time and provide the company running the website with enough financial motivation (e.g. good commissions), it is highly likely that it would become a mobilizing force for raising funds for projects.
But the best part would be that open-source authors could collect royalty checks for many years for their work, much like book-authors do.
This model may not be perfect, but I think with the right company and a willingness to evolve this basic model into something that fits with community needs, it could become a powerful force for rewarding and compensating open-source contributors.
Why would they lie? They have no reason to, other than perhaps being emberassed about going after 18 year old kids in dorm rooms.
It always amuses me, this "common consensus effect". Always perceive others as you believe you are perceived... Always attribute to others what you believe should be attributed to you...
Let me make my point dead on: Regardless of what you say, how can we trust you? There's an inherent conflict of interest in the question. If you say you don't spread FUD and play memetic psych games at all, would we belevie that? Would you reveal your employer?
My apologies for implying that you are looking for tactical information to commit memetic crimes.
This is a really good question and needs to be framed correctly such as:
"What is the most common suspect "profile" that you find yourself spending time on?"
Cops, like lawyers, often go after low-hanging fruit. The easier someone is to find and fry, the more notches they get to cut in their belt... Making them admit it would, well, err... at least feel good (make it cut the other way)..
3. First, some background: Many people on Slashdot and in the Open Source and Free Software communities detest the phrase "intellectual property". The argument is that IP is not "property", but a privelege granted to holders for the public benefit. I have always contended that the issue is irrelevant because whether or not IP is a "right" it can still be limited. For example, your right to hold land is limited and can be revoked if you fail to pay property taxes. A similar argument revolves around the term "piracy" and "theft" in relation to IP.
Dude, what are you SMOKING?
The "Free Software" communities are extremely sensitive about intellectual property. In particular, attribution could be described as one of the cornerstones of open-source morality. The communities take great care in protecting IP and flushing out IP issues. The communities see IP as more than a commercial tool, they see IP as authorship and respected boundaries of innovation.
That was a bizarre leading question dude... But I quite enjoyed the jedi-mind trick that you employed afterwards...
If one is smart enough to code in C, one is certainly smart enough to stumble over three hundred and forty seven thousand different bloated monstrosities that we call APIs for everything from graphics to managing Microsoft BOB derivitive bit puppets. If we can minimize the creation of these nasty things, we should do that. Who wants 127 versions of the standard 'C' graphics library besides, perhaps, Microsoft?
As far as my sig goes? Isn't it obvious?
In my world, working on Linux isn't working for IBM. It is working for the government of Germany or working for the the liberation of the poor in Asia (allowing them to participate in the technosphere). In my world, IBM generously dumps intellectual property, many man-decades of work and provides services for this same cause. Of course, it further's theirs as well and it frustrates their competition, but in the end, Linux does not belong to them, does it?
Just think of me as your anti-meme.... That will do just fine.
Chris, before you respond to my comment, perhaps you should read it... Let me present this back to you:
From my original comment: And yes, of course I understand the overhead, yady-yah of trying to evolve during the competition... But I'm certain a twist could have been introduced, such as selecting from a pool of "best evolved" solutions based on effectiveness against the competition... Keep the most evolved population alive, rather than just keeping the most fit solution alive...
From Chris's response: in the actual competition environment, the GA would probably be very ill-suited. evolution takes a long time, and most changes don't yield a better solution. the overhead of running the GA and the other offspring just would have crippled nasa's entry.
Was my comment that obtuse?
I am saying, essentially, that you don't have to actually "evolve" during the competition, but perhaps select from a pool of pre-evolved strategies using real-time fitness tests... a variation that includes NO genetic reproduction, just "selection" from the most highly evolved solutions that NASA had previously created... Hell, the fitness tests themselves could be run by literally "trying out" individuals in the population - and only keeping around the ones that are proving effective against the current competition.
The results may have turned out vastly different if the NASA program performed a bit of evolution during the contest.
It seems to me a great waste of evolutionary computation techniques to stop evolving just prior to competing!
And yes, of course I understand the overhead, yady-yah of trying to evolve during the competition... But I'm certain a twist could have been introduced, such as selecting from a pool of "best evolved" solutions based on effectiveness against the competition... Keep the most evolved population alive, rather than just keeping the most fit solution alive...
And ISO-C still specifies no standard library for graphics, networking, regex, or data structures which are respectively satisfied by (numerous APIs), sockets, Henry Spencer, and (roll-your-own).
Slashdot Mirror
Pondering this, I have realized that there may be a powerful way to incent developers to fix bugs and add features using this system as well.
Consider the possibility of this system allowing funders (purchasers, donaters, etc..) to optionally make their payment conditional upon a milestone. The payor would pay immediately, but the funds would be held in escrow (perhaps after some time limit, like 2 years, the conditions of this type of funding would be that if the milestones have not been reached, the funds would be released to the general pool [e.g. distributed evenly to all projects]).
The milestones could be bug-fixes, added features, documentation, or whatever. Developers could log-in and get a list of milestone requests and "bounties" on those requests. There would be a direct financial incentive for said developers to complete the work, because the funds associated with those milestones would be released upon completion (community vote re: milestone being met). The fund distribution would occur in the same way as the general model (e.g. dependency splits would still be honored), etc..
Using this technique, it may also be possible to allow independent developers (not generally associated with a project) to hop in and do a bit of paid work on a project as well. Brings new meaning to the term "contract programmer", methinks... An interesting twist, with some complications (again), but it could certainly be flushed out...
A big project shouldn't lose half it's revenues for using one tiny library.
Yea, I have been struggling with this myself. But there are some real dangers to doing it differently. Consider:
* If you allow voting or other methods to change the split between project and dependencies based on how many dependencies are used, then there will be more incentive for projects to re-create libraries that they would ordinarily just use. If the split (50/50, 60/40, whatever) cannot change (same for all projects, all the time), then everyone will just accept it and since there is no incentive to recreate the wheel, will use existing libraries - which we want, right?
* On the other hand, uber-succesful projects will grossly over-reward dependencies which may cause some disagreeable things to happen (such as projects writing competing libraries or changing libraries to someone that they like). I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, but it would definitely happen. On the other hand, it will create more competition between libraries which will result in better libraries!!
* If you consider that we always use dependencies (often many, many of them), that those dependencies deserve compensation and you realize that getting 50% of something (maybe even alot) is better than 100% of nothing (or a little bit), I think this idea starts to make more sense. Introducing wiggle room in splits would introduce greed into the equation. I think we want to stop that from happening.
Perhaps once a project reaches a certain level of success (e.g. money pouring in), split adjustments should be allowed by the community or perhaps follow some normalized degrading slope to more highly reward that project than it's dependencies. Maybe there could be maturity classifications for projects, each with a slightly different split, and the community could vote on which classification the project falls into. These are definitely the types of issues that would need flushing out.
Ultimately, such a beast would require delicate social management because the methodologies employed to split revenues would have dramatic influences on the manner in which open-source gets developed once such a system was bringing in the money.
MOD PARENT UP: Good post
It's a win-win for corporations. They can place the unprofitable portions of their business into the nonprofit.
Here here!! It's also a win-win for society, because, much like scientific research in academia, the end result is to add to the body of publicly available knowledge (in this case, open source).
It will be interesting to see how long it takes legislators to wake up to this, and call for charitable org reform. I wager that at least one generation (20 years) will pass and get fat off these exemptions before anything happens.
Who's to say that there is anything wrong with this idea? Frankly, if the public is receiving a service (open-source) then the backers should receive some tax protection.
Thanks for pointing out the idea of companies spinning out open-source divisions to use as tax-shelters and eliminate some software development costs. Brilliant idea and good post!
VC: Here's a truckload of money.
This is funny. But it's funny because of how ludicrous it is. Anyone who has any experience with the venture community knows in their bones that if they are willing to sign a deal with you, you either have something so good that you don't need them OR (More likely), you are about to become someone's bitch.
Let me be more clear. If a VC gives you money, that VC expects to do one of (A) Grow you and sell you off (flip you) to someone that they already know will be interested, or (B) Use you to achieve some sinister goal for some rich patron, or (C) Use you in some diabolical scheme to get press or assist in some other manner to raise the value of one of their other investments, or (D) Use you as leverage to get what they want in another deal (e.g. corporate extortion)...
The reason the dotBomb thing happened had nothing to do with stupid VCs with lots of cash. It had everything to do with a house of cards created through investments that existed to create bargaining leverage. As the economy unwound, the delicate balance of artificial deal leverage in the tech economy becan to collapse, causing a chain reaction that brought the whole friggen house down...
I have been thinking on this problem quite a bit lately.
.. ad infinitum (until we cannot split anymore [1 penny] or dependencies run out).
Consider the following:
Company XYZ launches an OSDN like websight that maintains a dependency graph of open-source projects (e.g. FOO project depends on code from X,Y,Z and libraries V,W).
The community can vote on and manage those dependencies and their relative importance. Any entry in the project database only lists it's direct dependencies (which themselves may have others). The system will self-organize and may require some interesting checks and balances but could be done.
The system perhaps begins as a donation website to "donate" to projects that you want to support, but could very quickly mobilize marketing to lobby companies that use projects to donate to those projects, etc...
The company running the website takes a commission from every "donation" or payment. We want this. This incents that company to continue and keeps it in business.
The balance after the commission is split 50% / 50% between the project principals and the dependencies. The 50% going to the dependencies is split according to the voted importance of those dependencies on the project. For each dependency, 50% is taken for that project and the other 50% split amongst it's dependencies,
All proceeds that go to project principals are really just numbers in accounts on the website associated with open-source projects, and while eventually it may make sense to do further breakdowns according to project members, in the beginning, the company running the website could just issue a check on a periodic basis to whomever the agreed-upon organization or person is that is associated with that project.
If you allow this model to evolve over time and provide the company running the website with enough financial motivation (e.g. good commissions), it is highly likely that it would become a mobilizing force for raising funds for projects.
But the best part would be that open-source authors could collect royalty checks for many years for their work, much like book-authors do.
This model may not be perfect, but I think with the right company and a willingness to evolve this basic model into something that fits with community needs, it could become a powerful force for rewarding and compensating open-source contributors.
...could you make sure there is no TIA? TIA.
I'm sure that is exactly what happened, simultaneously, from millions of mouths...
That is the wonder of democracy...
Why would they lie? They have no reason to, other than perhaps being emberassed about going after 18 year old kids in dorm rooms.
It always amuses me, this "common consensus effect". Always perceive others as you believe you are perceived... Always attribute to others what you believe should be attributed to you...
Let me make my point dead on: Regardless of what you say, how can we trust you? There's an inherent conflict of interest in the question. If you say you don't spread FUD and play memetic psych games at all, would we belevie that? Would you reveal your employer?
My apologies for implying that you are looking for tactical information to commit memetic crimes.
This is a really good question and needs to be framed correctly such as:
"What is the most common suspect "profile" that you find yourself spending time on?"
Cops, like lawyers, often go after low-hanging fruit. The easier someone is to find and fry, the more notches they get to cut in their belt... Making them admit it would, well, err... at least feel good (make it cut the other way)..
3. First, some background: Many people on Slashdot and in the Open Source and Free Software communities detest the phrase "intellectual property". The argument is that IP is not "property", but a privelege granted to holders for the public benefit. I have always contended that the issue is irrelevant because whether or not IP is a "right" it can still be limited. For example, your right to hold land is limited and can be revoked if you fail to pay property taxes. A similar argument revolves around the term "piracy" and "theft" in relation to IP.
Dude, what are you SMOKING?
The "Free Software" communities are extremely sensitive about intellectual property. In particular, attribution could be described as one of the cornerstones of open-source morality. The communities take great care in protecting IP and flushing out IP issues. The communities see IP as more than a commercial tool, they see IP as authorship and respected boundaries of innovation.
That was a bizarre leading question dude... But I quite enjoyed the jedi-mind trick that you employed afterwards...
Here's another epithet for us *NIX snobs to hurl at Windows* developers.
Why hurl anything at a windows developer? Don't you kinda feel sorry for them?
If one is smart enough to code in C, one is certainly smart enough to stumble over three hundred and forty seven thousand different bloated monstrosities that we call APIs for everything from graphics to managing Microsoft BOB derivitive bit puppets. If we can minimize the creation of these nasty things, we should do that. Who wants 127 versions of the standard 'C' graphics library besides, perhaps, Microsoft?
As far as my sig goes? Isn't it obvious?
In my world, working on Linux isn't working for IBM. It is working for the government of Germany or working for the the liberation of the poor in Asia (allowing them to participate in the technosphere). In my world, IBM generously dumps intellectual property, many man-decades of work and provides services for this same cause. Of course, it further's theirs as well and it frustrates their competition, but in the end, Linux does not belong to them, does it?
Just think of me as your anti-meme.... That will do just fine.
Chris, before you respond to my comment, perhaps you should read it... Let me present this back to you:
From my original comment: And yes, of course I understand the overhead, yady-yah of trying to evolve during the competition... But I'm certain a twist could have been introduced, such as selecting from a pool of "best evolved" solutions based on effectiveness against the competition... Keep the most evolved population alive, rather than just keeping the most fit solution alive...
From Chris's response: in the actual competition environment, the GA would probably be very ill-suited. evolution takes a long time, and most changes don't yield a better solution. the overhead of running the GA and the other offspring just would have crippled nasa's entry.
Was my comment that obtuse?
I am saying, essentially, that you don't have to actually "evolve" during the competition, but perhaps select from a pool of pre-evolved strategies using real-time fitness tests... a variation that includes NO genetic reproduction, just "selection" from the most highly evolved solutions that NASA had previously created... Hell, the fitness tests themselves could be run by literally "trying out" individuals in the population - and only keeping around the ones that are proving effective against the current competition.
The results may have turned out vastly different if the NASA program performed a bit of evolution during the contest.
It seems to me a great waste of evolutionary computation techniques to stop evolving just prior to competing!
And yes, of course I understand the overhead, yady-yah of trying to evolve during the competition... But I'm certain a twist could have been introduced, such as selecting from a pool of "best evolved" solutions based on effectiveness against the competition... Keep the most evolved population alive, rather than just keeping the most fit solution alive...
An interesting read, nonetheless...
And ISO-C still specifies no standard library for graphics, networking, regex, or data structures which are respectively satisfied by (numerous APIs), sockets, Henry Spencer, and (roll-your-own).
Are you advocating such an abomination?
Actually, making it wallet sized presents new methods of use which are, among other things, exactly what patents are around to protect.
I think it would do a great disservice to cute bunnies and kittens everywhere.
The power of a name, an association... The stuff of memetics... Amazing...