4 ms·

I'm always a bit ambivalent about these sorts of articles. On the one hand if free software is got the greater good, then it makes sense that collective paymen

I'm always a bit ambivalent about these sorts of articles. On the one hand if free software is got the greater good, then it makes sense that collective payment would be effecient - and the existing collective payment system we have currently is taxes and govt funding. So yay, let's tap into that. On the other hand this system is grossly ineffecient, and is subject to political oversight. Do we really want them picking and choosing winners and losers? This sort of funding also leads to stagnation. United Launch Alliance has been happily consuming govt $ for 5 decades, with very little improvement in tech. SpaceX comes along to show what can be done by adding a bit of ambition. (and I understand they sell to govt now, but they started with private money.) At the root of this discussion is the fact that Open Source / Free Software has yet to figure out the right funding model. We all agree that the current outcomes are positive, that competition is healthy, that Open access is desirable, but after 4 decades of trying we still don't know how to effeciently fund it. Donations are a bust. Companies aren't set up to pay for things altruistically, and govt funding would (IMO) likely corrupt the system, and incentize gaming-for-grants rather than making better software. Plus those you most need the $ will discover that applying and getting govt funds can result in a lot (I mean a LOT) of extra paperwork. So yeah, on the one hand more $ in the system is good. But govt $ comes at a cost. And that's before we discuss who actually gets paid if a "project" is funded.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> 4 decades of trying we still don't know how to effeciently fund it. I feel this was the most low-effort trying I've ever seen. I've seen fortune tellers and spiritual healers achieve better results that our industry did at rewarding alturism.
charcircuit 4y ago
>At the root of this discussion is the fact that Open Source / Free Software has yet to figure out the right funding model. It has. The biggest one is that tech companies work on open source software either to accomplish their business needs, commoditizing their complement, recruiting, etc. The money to do this comes from that companies business model / investors.
pabs3 4y ago
We already have people in big companies picking winners and losers via the kinds of projects that they fund. Having more funding can only lead to more winners, hopefully of a different kind than what companies are picking.
- bruce511 4y ago
  It's still just second-order funding though. Until we figure out how people actually getting the value from using the software contribute directly, it'll always be a sub-optimal solution. Of course to many folks the zero-cost idea is the most attractive part. Which makes it a hard circle to square. Perhaps second-order financing is the best there is. (and as an aside, second order prefers Open Source to Free Software.)
  - pabs3 4y ago
    Direct contributions are a solved problem too, most projects have pull requests for technical contributions and donations buttons for financial contributions. The hard part is indeed to convince people to contribute, but the Blender Development Fund shows that people who care do contribute financially. https://fund.blender.org/activity/ https://fund.blender.org/activity/

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> 4 decades of trying we still don't know how to effeciently fund it. I feel this was the most low-effort trying I've ever seen. I've seen fortune tellers and spiritual healers achieve better results that our industry did at rewarding alturism.

charcircuit 4y ago

>At the root of this discussion is the fact that Open Source / Free Software has yet to figure out the right funding model. It has. The biggest one is that tech companies work on open source software either to accomplish their business needs, commoditizing their complement, recruiting, etc. The money to do this comes from that companies business model / investors.

pabs3 4y ago

We already have people in big companies picking winners and losers via the kinds of projects that they fund. Having more funding can only lead to more winners, hopefully of a different kind than what companies are picking.

bruce511 4y ago
It's still just second-order funding though. Until we figure out how people actually getting the value from using the software contribute directly, it'll always be a sub-optimal solution. Of course to many folks the zero-cost idea is the most attractive part. Which makes it a hard circle to square. Perhaps second-order financing is the best there is. (and as an aside, second order prefers Open Source to Free Software.)
- pabs3 4y ago
  Direct contributions are a solved problem too, most projects have pull requests for technical contributions and donations buttons for financial contributions. The hard part is indeed to convince people to contribute, but the Blender Development Fund shows that people who care do contribute financially. https://fund.blender.org/activity/ https://fund.blender.org/activity/