2 ms·

I'm not hostile about you, I'm hostile about your model, since I care about open source, and OSS for me is not a license, but a culture and a model for the deve

by antirez 14y ago

I'm not hostile about you, I'm hostile about your model, since I care about open source, and OSS for me is not a license, but a culture and a model for the development of the computers industry. I think there are things that play nicely with the open source model, that is, ways to make money that don't interact in a bad way with the culture of free software. I don't think that to ask to be payed to open source stuff is in line with the OSS movement / culture. Ok, now that the hostile bit is discussed, my argument is that it makes more sense IMHO if you say, there are N people willing to donate me 10$ per year if I open source this stuff? It's still wrong IMHO as a model, but at least makes sense, that is, you will get money to provide the software relevant, updated, documented in the future. The una tantum system instead is broken, how you'll make money in the future in order to continue the development, since it is clear you don't write this software if you are not backed in some way?

robbrown451 14y ago
He's already shown that he is willing to support his stuff without additional payment, he's done so with CodeMirror. When taking on this project, he presumably factored it in, that he'd want to continue to support it. If not, well, those of us who chipped in probably won't chip in on the next thing he does. I'm willing to take that risk. And even if he doesn't...so what? It's open source. Other people can continue the work, and if they want to do something ambitious enough to justify crowdfunding as well....more power to them. You may be right that what he is doing isn't "in line with the OSS movement/culture." Richard Stallman would likely agree with you...he was never one for shades of gray. I would argue that if that is true, that the OSS movement/culture is the thing with the problem.
marijn 14y ago
I've been doing something like that (try to get people to make regular payments) with CodeMirror, in the form of selling commercial support. I've found it hard to get people to continue to pay, and a major time drain to keep track of all the paperwork involved. A crowd funder driven by a short hype is simply much easier to manage.
- shurcooL 14y ago
  Thankfully you're already on Gittip, I'll happily support what you're doing. I'm working on a similar cause. :)

by antirez 14y ago

robbrown451 14y ago

He's already shown that he is willing to support his stuff without additional payment, he's done so with CodeMirror. When taking on this project, he presumably factored it in, that he'd want to continue to support it. If not, well, those of us who chipped in probably won't chip in on the next thing he does. I'm willing to take that risk. And even if he doesn't...so what? It's open source. Other people can continue the work, and if they want to do something ambitious enough to justify crowdfunding as well....more power to them. You may be right that what he is doing isn't "in line with the OSS movement/culture." Richard Stallman would likely agree with you...he was never one for shades of gray. I would argue that if that is true, that the OSS movement/culture is the thing with the problem.

marijn 14y ago

I've been doing something like that (try to get people to make regular payments) with CodeMirror, in the form of selling commercial support. I've found it hard to get people to continue to pay, and a major time drain to keep track of all the paperwork involved. A crowd funder driven by a short hype is simply much easier to manage.

shurcooL 14y ago
Thankfully you're already on Gittip, I'll happily support what you're doing. I'm working on a similar cause. :)