3 ms·
That government is best which governs least. -- Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson Years ago, I read a biography of a prostitute and political activist. She
by NovemberWest 13y ago
That government is best which governs least. -- Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson
Years ago, I read a biography of a prostitute and political activist. She wanted prostitution decriminalized, not legalized. She felt legalizing it would create problems. She cited Nevada as an example, where there is a fair amount of regulatory burden on the women but the pimps and johns still essentially do as they please. She just wanted the right to charge for services without risk of arrest.
I will suggest that since there is already open source, incentives are probably not a good idea. But removing barriers of some sort might do a lot.
I have thought a lot about such things over the years, not open source per se but, for example, how to make money from making information freely available. It is a challenge but can be done and has been for years (broadcast radio, broadcast tv, etc). So I would suggest you work on removing barriers rather than providing "incentives." Or at least balance the incentives piece with also removing barriers.
My 2¢.
Edit: Someone want to kindly explain the downvote? Is there some problem with suggesting a removal of barriers instead of providing incentives? Or this just a helping of lurv from one of my many anti-fans?
Thx.
- VikingCoder 13y agoI think you got a downvote because I can't imagine what your second paragraph has to do with anything. Also, broadcast radio, broadcast TV are not freely available, so they're poor examples for you to use. (They have licensing terms, prohibit rebroadcast, embed commercials that are not desirable with no legitimate way to remove them, you have to pay to get a DVD or watch on iTunes or Amazon, etc.)
- NovemberWest 13y agoWell, it looks relevant to me. Incentivizing something is similar to legalizing it whereas removing barriers is similar to decrimilizing it. And broadcast radio and TV work for my purposes as an example. They do not directly charge consumers for the information they share yet they manage to make a buck. I will note I am 48, so maybe I am remembering a broadcast era a lot of members here would not remember. Note to self: Folks on HN routinely think sex and prostitution references are irrelevant, not on point, not a meaningful example, ad nauseum. Maybe someday I will remember it gets perceived that way, even though I think we are all adults and it should be nbd. But thanks for the feedback. Have an upvote.
- VikingCoder 13y agoIt's the flaws of TV and radio that make them no longer work as an example. The technology advanced to the ridiculous stage - we really are living in the future!, but the licensing did not. The laws enforce restrictions, and the content owners exploit them, to a degree that's absurd to most of us.
- NovemberWest 13y agoThank you for the feedback. I think I see a bit of our disconnect. My main interest is in the general model of making info/entertainment available to an audience for "free" while still finding a way to monetize it. Broadcast TV and radio have done that for a long time and there are some websites that exist which do much the same. There are no membership fees. You can read/participate for free. Yet the site owner somehow makes money. Some take donations. Some use advertising to pay the bills. Some sell merchandise. (And one invests in startups, which is way more complicated than my modest goals, so not a model I am looking to emulate but it does exist.) Perhaps I am merely a fool, tilting at windmills. But that is the general model I am shooting for. The details on how that works varies, but that model has been around for decades, both before the Internet and, in recent years, on the Internet. It can be done. It is being done. I have yet to make it work, but it is a viable model.