Re: Funding GPL projects or funding the GPL?

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Alexander Viro wrote:

>On 28 Jul 2002, Federico Ferreres wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I stated a simple idea aimed at solving a real world issue. And you
>>haven't proved it wrong. It may not be what you or the kernel hackers
>>need/want (which is FINE). But it would solve ALL the funding problems
>>at least.
>>    
>>
>
>You don't get it.  So far the only guy who had been charitable was Larry, who
>felt that problem was real but had serious doubts about viability of your
>idea.  I don't feel charitable and I've no reason to hesitate telling that
>you guys _are_ waste of time.  No maybes about it.  It's that simple...
>
>
>  
>
Viro is abusive to everyone (by email, he is likable in person oddly 
enough), usually without understanding what he is talking about at a 
level of depth any deeper than it is new therefor wrong (see devfs 
thread where he rejects devfs on the basis of endless details without 
understanding that the basic idea had any merit).

Your idea has some merit in my opinion. I think that my version of it 
that I presented at linuxworld some years ago, which is called an "Open 
Sale", has some advantages.

     "Open Sales" are the best method for reducing the economic
    distortion caused by non-zero marginal pricing of
     products with zero marginal cost without losing the incentive to
    produce.  An open sale is when a user group agrees to
     pay X% of their hardware expenditures to all of those who provide
    them with the right to use their software, with the
     users performing the allocation to the providers based on the
    users' usage and perception of quality. The users
     determine the value of X, setting it in accordance with their
    interest in attracting providers.  It is open in the
     sense that any software producer may add their software to the list
    whose usage and quality will be
     evaluated. Automation of usage monitoring and sampling techniques
    are expected refinements of the basic idea. It is
     based on a belief that economic distortion is proportional to the
    ratio between marginal price and marginal cost, not
     just the dollar total of the gap, and that increasing the price of
    hardware by X% is less of a distortion than
     increasing the cost of software by an infinite ratio over its
    production cost. An open sale retains the consumer/user
     driven decentralized economic allocation of traditional sales, and
    in the case of government agencies and other large
     purchasers, it enhances it.  Payment of the X% is required to
    legally use the software.


My approach has the advantage that the fee scales with hardware costs, 
and that it is set by users.

However, you should understand that an idea is not enough, you must have 
sufficient sociological mass to pull it off.  Neither you nor I are in 
that position at this time.   Most people will be hostile to you if you 
propose an idea that you lack the sociological position to effectuate.....

-- 
Hans