Re:Keeping “Free Law” Free
by thinkcomp on Thursday January 25, 2018 @12:35PM
(#16232693)
The model is RECAP before Free Law Project took over. It was backed by Princeton (which didn't spend much), had far fewer expenses (certainly no one got paid $90K a year; it was a grad student project), and moved forward code-wise via the coding challenge my foundation sponsored which cost one-fifth as much. See https://free.law/2013/04/02/two-recap-grants-awarded-in-memo....
The problem here is that RECAP may need money, but it is not being transparent about how it gets its money and is misleading users as a result.
Mike has made deliberate choices about how he runs FLP. I run Think Computer Foundation and PlainSite, which does the same thing as CourtListener. PlainSite is financially self-sustaining. CourtListener is not. There are alternatives to FLP's new "model."
The problem here is that RECAP may need money, but it is not being transparent about how it gets its money and is misleading users as a result.
Mike has made deliberate choices about how he runs FLP. I run Think Computer Foundation and PlainSite, which does the same thing as CourtListener. PlainSite is financially self-sustaining. CourtListener is not. There are alternatives to FLP's new "model."