5 ms·

I am, on the other hand, not a fan of this investment model. Indeed I would go so far as to say I don't think it works nor does it make much sense. Especially i

I am, on the other hand, not a fan of this investment model. Indeed I would go so far as to say I don't think it works nor does it make much sense. Especially in the open source world. I've been using django since 2006. This has been a suggestion since then. Why hasn't it been implemented if it is so necessary? It doesn't require a massive core shift, it doesn't even require that much work it seems? So why hasn't it been done with so many eyes on so well documented a platform on so accessible a language with so many commercial deployments? If no one has scratched this itch then paying for someone to scratch an itch you may think you are go Will the person be deprived of their normal source of income for exactly the time period required to do the work? How is that justified as a cost? Maybe they are a contractor who will take the time out. If that is the case how can there be expandable requirements (longer goal objectives for more money? It could be this whole thing sits very well with their day to day job, but in the western world that is unlikely. I'm sure all intentions are good but it also strikes me as a bit questionable to do these things when lots of other people have committed much more centrally to the project with little immediate remuneration.

andrewgodwin 14y ago
So the situation here is indeed interesting - I understand your concern. I've asked all the other core contributors to Django their opinions on this and there's been resounding support from them, so that's not a concern. I also have a day a week free for this, so there's no concern of this robbing income - that day a week was previously used for learning to fly, and now I'm done with that it needs to have something that pays in order to keep me going. If the choice for that is freelance or open source work, and they pay closely, you can bet I'm going for the open source work.
- easytiger 14y ago
  Yea I appreciate the concerns I have may be total nonsense too! I see from your point of view its a great way to work on something cool/interesting/career boosting and also be payed for it. Heck I've got a list of about 13 projects that are roughly affiliated with my day job but because of whom i work for and the time I have free being used up for other much more frivolous things I havn't had a chance in a year. Perhaps it is just jealousy on my part :)
flexie 14y ago
I don't understand the concern. It's a real problem and if someone wanted to do it for free, they could have and would have. Here is a guy who offers to do it if he get's paid a minimum amount. Fine. No moral issues.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - Aloisius 14y ago
    The issue is that it arguably violates the spirit of open source. Open source software is meant to be free and available to everyone. The spirit of Open Source is free like speech, not like beer. Open Source, while often given away, has always been about empowering people to be able to hack on internals, not simply avoid paying money for things. I've paid real money for a lot of open source software for the decade and a half and done so happily.
    - nicpottier 14y ago
      Yes, thank you for reminding us all of that. Kids these days weren't around during the /. debates on this very topic.
  - freyr 14y ago
    > it arguably violates the spirit of open source. Open source software is meant to be free and available to everyone. Open source means open source. There's no implicit requirement that the developer must have received no monetary compensation for developing the source. Besides, a whole lot of open-source software is written by developers who, while developing it, are getting paid by a parent company. Consider Apple, who has contributed open-source software as an outgrowth of their work on OS X. Do you think they demanded that their developers work for free, so as to avoid tainting the spirit of the open source movement and complicating the ethical calculus? Of course not.
  - reitzensteinm 14y ago
    Money and open source mix just fine. The practical reason that open source has exploded is that a large number of interested parties can contribute towards a project that benefits them all, avoiding duplication of effort. This is just the next logical step. Instead of contributing one hour of my time, I can spend it on my day job and pay for one hour of Andrew's time. In practice, this is exactly the same as the old model, just with higher efficiency - as a Django outsider (but user), one hour of Andrew's time is worth the first hundred of mine. If you don't want to contribute financially, you have no obligation to; just in the same way that you can use Django and contribute no code. It also doesn't stop you from helping in other ways - I'm sure Andrew would be thrilled to have help, so long as you spend those countless hours getting up to speed :)
Ensorceled 14y ago
I'm a big fan of this investment model. I don't really contribute to open source, my contribution is mostly bug reports and being willing to help the real contributors track down issues. Stuff like this is how I contribute. I, either personally or via companies I've worked for, have done this kind of thing a lot: approach the developer and ask for our bug or feature to get pushed up the priority queue. Sometimes it's a small tip but one company gave out a $10K contract for a bunch of work.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  I don't really contribute to open source, my contribution is mostly bug reports and being willing to help the real contributors track down issues. Jeremy Ashkenas on here a few days ago would have said such contribution is a vital and useful one - this is a game of inches - and clearing down bug lists, and beefing up the real ones is a big one
kmfrk 14y ago
Can anyone who's ever worked on a FOSS hobby project honestly say that they wouldn't prioritize differently, if anyone offered them money to work on it?
sailfast 14y ago
I see this kickstarter model as similar to large companies that contribute employee time to work on open source projects - this just decentralizes it, focuses the development more on the project, and establishes community demand prior to rolling out the feature. If this continues do you risk drying up other non-compensated commits or risk contributors waiting for funding before pushing code? You might see a small decrease, but I'd be willing to bet the same dynamics that have kept the open source community moving forward will continue - you just might see more targeted, rapid progress in areas people are willing to fund and a small cottage industry emerge that makes money contributing to projects.
paulhauggis 14y ago
So you are essentially saying this guy should do it for free. "Will the person be deprived of their normal source of income for exactly the time period required to do the work?" Does it matter? It will most likely be on his free time, which for me is many times more valuable than my normal income. This is why developing open source is going down a dangerous path: When you work for free once, people expect you to work for free always.

andrewgodwin 14y ago

So the situation here is indeed interesting - I understand your concern. I've asked all the other core contributors to Django their opinions on this and there's been resounding support from them, so that's not a concern. I also have a day a week free for this, so there's no concern of this robbing income - that day a week was previously used for learning to fly, and now I'm done with that it needs to have something that pays in order to keep me going. If the choice for that is freelance or open source work, and they pay closely, you can bet I'm going for the open source work.

easytiger 14y ago
Yea I appreciate the concerns I have may be total nonsense too! I see from your point of view its a great way to work on something cool/interesting/career boosting and also be payed for it. Heck I've got a list of about 13 projects that are roughly affiliated with my day job but because of whom i work for and the time I have free being used up for other much more frivolous things I havn't had a chance in a year. Perhaps it is just jealousy on my part :)

flexie 14y ago

I don't understand the concern. It's a real problem and if someone wanted to do it for free, they could have and would have. Here is a guy who offers to do it if he get's paid a minimum amount. Fine. No moral issues.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- Aloisius 14y ago
  The issue is that it arguably violates the spirit of open source. Open source software is meant to be free and available to everyone. The spirit of Open Source is free like speech, not like beer. Open Source, while often given away, has always been about empowering people to be able to hack on internals, not simply avoid paying money for things. I've paid real money for a lot of open source software for the decade and a half and done so happily.
  - nicpottier 14y ago
    Yes, thank you for reminding us all of that. Kids these days weren't around during the /. debates on this very topic.
- freyr 14y ago
  > it arguably violates the spirit of open source. Open source software is meant to be free and available to everyone. Open source means open source. There's no implicit requirement that the developer must have received no monetary compensation for developing the source. Besides, a whole lot of open-source software is written by developers who, while developing it, are getting paid by a parent company. Consider Apple, who has contributed open-source software as an outgrowth of their work on OS X. Do you think they demanded that their developers work for free, so as to avoid tainting the spirit of the open source movement and complicating the ethical calculus? Of course not.
- reitzensteinm 14y ago
  Money and open source mix just fine. The practical reason that open source has exploded is that a large number of interested parties can contribute towards a project that benefits them all, avoiding duplication of effort. This is just the next logical step. Instead of contributing one hour of my time, I can spend it on my day job and pay for one hour of Andrew's time. In practice, this is exactly the same as the old model, just with higher efficiency - as a Django outsider (but user), one hour of Andrew's time is worth the first hundred of mine. If you don't want to contribute financially, you have no obligation to; just in the same way that you can use Django and contribute no code. It also doesn't stop you from helping in other ways - I'm sure Andrew would be thrilled to have help, so long as you spend those countless hours getting up to speed :)

Ensorceled 14y ago

I'm a big fan of this investment model. I don't really contribute to open source, my contribution is mostly bug reports and being willing to help the real contributors track down issues. Stuff like this is how I contribute. I, either personally or via companies I've worked for, have done this kind of thing a lot: approach the developer and ask for our bug or feature to get pushed up the priority queue. Sometimes it's a small tip but one company gave out a $10K contract for a bunch of work.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago
I don't really contribute to open source, my contribution is mostly bug reports and being willing to help the real contributors track down issues. Jeremy Ashkenas on here a few days ago would have said such contribution is a vital and useful one - this is a game of inches - and clearing down bug lists, and beefing up the real ones is a big one

kmfrk 14y ago

Can anyone who's ever worked on a FOSS hobby project honestly say that they wouldn't prioritize differently, if anyone offered them money to work on it?

sailfast 14y ago

I see this kickstarter model as similar to large companies that contribute employee time to work on open source projects - this just decentralizes it, focuses the development more on the project, and establishes community demand prior to rolling out the feature. If this continues do you risk drying up other non-compensated commits or risk contributors waiting for funding before pushing code? You might see a small decrease, but I'd be willing to bet the same dynamics that have kept the open source community moving forward will continue - you just might see more targeted, rapid progress in areas people are willing to fund and a small cottage industry emerge that makes money contributing to projects.

paulhauggis 14y ago

So you are essentially saying this guy should do it for free. "Will the person be deprived of their normal source of income for exactly the time period required to do the work?" Does it matter? It will most likely be on his free time, which for me is many times more valuable than my normal income. This is why developing open source is going down a dangerous path: When you work for free once, people expect you to work for free always.