4 ms·

Actually, I don't think they are looking to build a business out of this? From the web site: "This is the Mailpile business model. As long as members of our com

by ptype 13y ago

Actually, I don't think they are looking to build a business out of this? From the web site: "This is the Mailpile business model. As long as members of our community are willing to fund development (we will ask you to renew your membership in a years' time), we will dedicate ourselves to Mailpile and build the secure web-mail client you want."

ChuckMcM 13y ago
This and the parent combined are the interesting bit. So this is exactly the Richard Stallman model of software. Pay people to develop it, don't charge anything for the software and give away the source. There is no economic incentive for the donors (they might get a mail program, might not, but they will never get their money back or a return on that money.) I suppose rms originally imagined that someone like the mailpile people would take the money they were given to create mailpile and give it to some other developer to create the tools they need. However, as we see in this campaign, all the money they get will go toward feeding, housing, and insuring themselves. (wait till they learn about payroll taxes, that will make them fiscal conservatives in a hurry :-) Like the parent comment I can see how this works in the "old" world (make a company, product, sell it, rinse and repeat) but am curious to see if it can work in this other way.
- icebraining 13y ago
  I don't see why would this be the "Stallman model of software", and not any of the other business models that don't involve selling users proprietary software or closed computers. In fact, rms himself has sold copies of Emacs in the past.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    I called it that because I first heard about the model that one should pay for the creation of software but not its use in the "GNU Manifesto" [1] which Richard wrote. [1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

by ptype 13y ago

ChuckMcM 13y ago

This and the parent combined are the interesting bit. So this is exactly the Richard Stallman model of software. Pay people to develop it, don't charge anything for the software and give away the source. There is no economic incentive for the donors (they might get a mail program, might not, but they will never get their money back or a return on that money.) I suppose rms originally imagined that someone like the mailpile people would take the money they were given to create mailpile and give it to some other developer to create the tools they need. However, as we see in this campaign, all the money they get will go toward feeding, housing, and insuring themselves. (wait till they learn about payroll taxes, that will make them fiscal conservatives in a hurry :-) Like the parent comment I can see how this works in the "old" world (make a company, product, sell it, rinse and repeat) but am curious to see if it can work in this other way.

icebraining 13y ago
I don't see why would this be the "Stallman model of software", and not any of the other business models that don't involve selling users proprietary software or closed computers. In fact, rms himself has sold copies of Emacs in the past.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  I called it that because I first heard about the model that one should pay for the creation of software but not its use in the "GNU Manifesto" [1] which Richard wrote. [1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html