Re:Ask HN: Critique this idea
by alain94040 on Thursday July 02, 2009 @05:22AM
(#684079)
I'm one of the founders of FairSoftware and I have been thinking about the problem you describe for 3 years now...
You are on the right track, but I would suggest some tweaks.
1. Why does FOSS have to be given away for free? The freedom that RMS talks about is in accessing the source code and improving it. In other words, if you made donations to FOSS mandatory, you'd still have "libre" software, but not "free" (beer) anymore. Is that too shocking a concept?
This could make the amount of money flowing in significant enough that developers could start abandoning their day job and actually work full-time on FOSS. Today, if you look at who significantly contributes to FOSS, apart from a few exceptions, they are all somehow on the payroll of IBM, Sun, Intel or Google. That's not freedom.
2. In our implementation of FairSoftware, we used the paradigm of a corporation, where everyone is a shareholder and decides on future share allocation. To match better a FOSS implementation, I would recommend some sort of karma, where everyone can upvote contributions they like. In large, unstructured groups, it might work better. If I like what you do, I give you a +1. Think of it like HackerNews voting, if you will. This is somewhat subject to gaming, but nothing that can't be fixed.
It would provide a model for allocating the shares that is more in line, I think, with the FOSS community.
Finally, I disagree with the statements that if you start compensating people for contributions to FOSS in any way, you will pollute the well. If implemented improperly, it's true that you can alienate the volunteers. That's why I think the flexible karma approach would fit much better. You can receive karma without having to ask. A good leader will make sure that newcomers are welcome and give them some thank-you points as soon as they help.
You are on the right track, but I would suggest some tweaks.
1. Why does FOSS have to be given away for free? The freedom that RMS talks about is in accessing the source code and improving it. In other words, if you made donations to FOSS mandatory, you'd still have "libre" software, but not "free" (beer) anymore. Is that too shocking a concept?
This could make the amount of money flowing in significant enough that developers could start abandoning their day job and actually work full-time on FOSS. Today, if you look at who significantly contributes to FOSS, apart from a few exceptions, they are all somehow on the payroll of IBM, Sun, Intel or Google. That's not freedom.
2. In our implementation of FairSoftware, we used the paradigm of a corporation, where everyone is a shareholder and decides on future share allocation. To match better a FOSS implementation, I would recommend some sort of karma, where everyone can upvote contributions they like. In large, unstructured groups, it might work better. If I like what you do, I give you a +1. Think of it like HackerNews voting, if you will. This is somewhat subject to gaming, but nothing that can't be fixed.
It would provide a model for allocating the shares that is more in line, I think, with the FOSS community.
Finally, I disagree with the statements that if you start compensating people for contributions to FOSS in any way, you will pollute the well. If implemented improperly, it's true that you can alienate the volunteers. That's why I think the flexible karma approach would fit much better. You can receive karma without having to ask. A good leader will make sure that newcomers are welcome and give them some thank-you points as soon as they help.