we do something similar. however, our charter contains a democractic element and provides for an inclusion of five different interest groups or "production/consumption forces" (artists, users, open source, objectivity/rationality and employees). the core compentence of this collective decision making body is to distribute wealth/available budget: each of those interest fraction has a combined voting power of 20% in the case of important economic decisions (e.g. how much is the salary of the chairman?, how much is the membership fee? how much should an artist get for making a new simple and complex piece of work ("tender-content"?)
from a theoretical perspective, price setting (e.g. membership fees) and cost allocation (salary of chairman) is not primarily outcome of (external) demand and supply but rather the result of an "internal bargaing poll" between all production/consumption forces (subject to outside competitive pressure; however, we expect this pressure to be limited because of the not-for-profit goals of our foundation and the competitive market place advantage that the pro-bono motivations comes with.)
we decided to restrict the democratic inclusion of all interest fractions ("parties") to important economic decisions/fair distribution of wealth.
(at least initially) there is a "benevolent dictatorship" as regards fundamental, non-numerical questions (e.g. in the light of article I lit (a) of the digital license (providing for free access to community funded content), should we give our community members the possibility to retail investing and offer the sale of bonds and shares in entertainment content (which comes with access restrictions)? should we distribute exclusively in ogg/xvid?). those questions are first discussed with the supervisory board (interest fraction objectivity/rationality) and are not subject to voting.
welcome on board.:) indeed, the trillian over gaim choice is one example that - where there is a - minor (?!?) conflict between the interests of open source and google - google doesnt hesitate. and im pretty sure the benefits of adding trillian are quite small. would be interesting to know though. consequently, if the benefits of adding trillian are small, and yet it is chosen over gaim, there seem to be no true committment and support/promotion of open source.
"The students can do what they want afterward."
sure. but, in practise, how many of those bright developers/students would reject an offer to work for the trendy, well paying google company. in the information age, human capital is extremely valuable.
"That's what many companies do, hiring smart developers. While it's not good- I don't see how Google is any worse than any other company for this practice."
reputation and market power.
not many other companies have the "pro-bono" reputation google has. this, in turn, might have an impact on a number of people to make a choice for google (over - say microsoft for instance).
check the market cap of google and many other companies. and google is young.
"Google hired the main Gaim developer, and they don't ship it as part of the Google Pack?"
well, thats because google doesnt care too much about open source but is just smarter than most other traditional it companies and they see the tremendous - yet largely unstructured and very loosely connected - economic powers of the open source community. once those os communities work more focussed, structured and interlinked be assured others will also try to become "friends" with them.
google a true friend of open source? dont think so. 400 times 4500$ for the summer of code is some money and it has some benefits for the open source development in general. but, first, compare this prize money to the millions that they paid this ms guy. second and more important, google gets to know 400 bright people and can approach/hire them when they are students - not necessary to pay millions to hire them from a competitor at a later stage. this certainly is worth the 400 times 4500.
google is good for open source? in the long run...dont think so. they take lead developers (read: directly weaken the os community) from ff and gaim and hire them to work for google. what makes open source a success? its the bright people/developers behind it. take that and open source is left with some volunteers and good intentions, but not much more.
can one blame them? no. its a company as any other company and has the same goals. google is just smarter and with an excellent marketing and pr department.
should one be thankful for google? im defenitely thankful for their search technology but im certainly not thankful for their business model/strategy. hooking up with open source is the smartest thing they can do in terms of costs and benefits. plus, in taking lead developers they seriously weaken the further open source development in exchange for pocketmoney. something, i think, a true open source member should hardly be thankful for.
Slashdot Mirror
from a theoretical perspective, price setting (e.g. membership fees) and cost allocation (salary of chairman) is not primarily outcome of (external) demand and supply but rather the result of an "internal bargaing poll" between all production/consumption forces (subject to outside competitive pressure; however, we expect this pressure to be limited because of the not-for-profit goals of our foundation and the competitive market place advantage that the pro-bono motivations comes with.)
we decided to restrict the democratic inclusion of all interest fractions ("parties") to important economic decisions/fair distribution of wealth.
(at least initially) there is a "benevolent dictatorship" as regards fundamental, non-numerical questions (e.g. in the light of article I lit (a) of the digital license (providing for free access to community funded content), should we give our community members the possibility to retail investing and offer the sale of bonds and shares in entertainment content (which comes with access restrictions)? should we distribute exclusively in ogg/xvid?). those questions are first discussed with the supervisory board (interest fraction objectivity/rationality) and are not subject to voting.
"I'm all about being skeptical"
:) indeed, the trillian over gaim choice is one example that - where there is a - minor (?!?) conflict between the interests of open source and google - google doesnt hesitate. and im pretty sure the benefits of adding trillian are quite small. would be interesting to know though. consequently, if the benefits of adding trillian are small, and yet it is chosen over gaim, there seem to be no true committment and support/promotion of open source.
welcome on board.
"The students can do what they want afterward."
sure. but, in practise, how many of those bright developers/students would reject an offer to work for the trendy, well paying google company. in the information age, human capital is extremely valuable.
"That's what many companies do, hiring smart developers. While it's not good- I don't see how Google is any worse than any other company for this practice."
reputation and market power.
not many other companies have the "pro-bono" reputation google has. this, in turn, might have an impact on a number of people to make a choice for google (over - say microsoft for instance).
check the market cap of google and many other companies. and google is young.
"Google hired the main Gaim developer, and they don't ship it as part of the Google Pack?"
well, thats because google doesnt care too much about open source but is just smarter than most other traditional it companies and they see the tremendous - yet largely unstructured and very loosely connected - economic powers of the open source community. once those os communities work more focussed, structured and interlinked be assured others will also try to become "friends" with them.
google a true friend of open source? dont think so. 400 times 4500$ for the summer of code is some money and it has some benefits for the open source development in general. but, first, compare this prize money to the millions that they paid this ms guy. second and more important, google gets to know 400 bright people and can approach/hire them when they are students - not necessary to pay millions to hire them from a competitor at a later stage. this certainly is worth the 400 times 4500.
google is good for open source? in the long run...dont think so. they take lead developers (read: directly weaken the os community) from ff and gaim and hire them to work for google. what makes open source a success? its the bright people/developers behind it. take that and open source is left with some volunteers and good intentions, but not much more.
can one blame them? no. its a company as any other company and has the same goals. google is just smarter and with an excellent marketing and pr department.
should one be thankful for google? im defenitely thankful for their search technology but im certainly not thankful for their business model/strategy. hooking up with open source is the smartest thing they can do in terms of costs and benefits. plus, in taking lead developers they seriously weaken the further open source development in exchange for pocketmoney. something, i think, a true open source member should hardly be thankful for.