Re: Funding GPL projects or funding the GPL?

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Federico Ferreres wrote:

>  
>
>>My approach has the advantage that the fee scales with hardware costs, 
>>and that it is set by users.
>>    
>>
>
>That's really an improvement over my idea (in the corporate area mostly.
>In the home user area it doesn't matter, as he will probably use 1
>computer at a time).
>
>I can clearly see that a combination of both schemes would be needed,
>because they are opposite sides of the same coin (your idea could be
>though as an x% tax on hardware to fund developement, mine as a direct
>payment from the users).
>
Mine is a direct fee payment from users with allocation of fee 
instructions accompanying the fee.  The fee is less for buyers of cheap 
computers since the hardware cost is low, so folks in Brazil on average 
pay less than folks in Silicon Valley.  The more you spend in hardware 
the more you can afford to pay/contribute for software.

>
>Everything else remains the same (as Hans and I have said, the users
>will have a limited ability to chose what they need. I say limited
>because for an Office application to work the core must remain funded
>even though the user may not notice it).
>
Limited?  What limit?  If you  pay the X% of hardware cost fee you can 
use all the software in the pool.

> 
>  
>
>>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.....
>>    
>>
>
>Makes sense. But if the idea is good, the ones that can make a
>difference will support it, assuming they analized what is being
>proposed. 
>
You are assuming they think.  They don't.  They sense herd movement. 
 This is wise of them, because unless a large portion of the herd moves 
to it, it has no value.  Thus it has no value.  Thus the herd does not move.

-- 
Hans