From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: On a free repacker Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:28:13 -0700 Message-ID: <200405201028.13184.reiser@namesys.com> References: <20040519192831.GL24604@nysv.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20040519192831.GL24604@nysv.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Markus =?iso-8859-1?q?T=F6rnqvist?= , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Cc: flx@namesys.com flx, please create the donations acceptance wording for our website. Hans On Wednesday 19 May 2004 12:28, Markus T=F6rnqvist wrote: > Hi > > There was an IRC discussion earlier today, a short one, about the repacke= r. > > It appears that Reiser4 does not fragment much in normal use, but it can > get badly fragmented with fsstress for example? > > Now, the idea is to sell the repacker. > > Basically: > > 1) It could be binary-only > Enough buyers will open the source like with Blender > There would be online statistics which describe how much to go > before this happens. > > 2) You could sell the sources and the rights to do whatever you want, > except redistribute it. Yes, I think this. > > There was the point that Blender had gained some popularity before > the source release, which Reiser4 does not yet have. That may make > this difficult to push through. A free repacker would make the situation > better, but I see it as one of those annoying chicken-and-egg problems. > > The pricing must be ok too. Not so high that regular people won't buy it > but not so cheap that it doesn't generate revenue. I think 5% of the cost of the storage hardware (including raid cards), whic= h=20 is about $5 for most people. > > If the source code is sold, people may want to develop it further, but > I'm sure if they pay 1000000000e for it, they will expect perfection > and not contribute. > > Then there's some copy-protection issues. I hope it will not be too > heavily laid with license keys and stuff like that, because it makes > usage harder and doesn't stop anyone from being an asshole. No copy protection. We will make money from large corporations and not wor= ry=20 about individual pirates. > > I understood that a binary-only model would be in the form of a kernel > module? It may be the easiest method. only user space portion will be non-gpl. > > Hans, what's your take on this? > Maybe a real donations page would be required to get the baby up and > running, maybe some really basic repacker but one that's so rock-solid > that people would buy it and know they'll get free updates and in > the end it'll be all open... > > Just my two cents worth of rambling again :) thanks for your thoughts.