Re: Funding GPL projects or funding the GPL?

[Federico Ferreres]

On Sun, 2002-07-28 at 07:35, Alexander Viro wrote:
> You don't get it.  So far the only guy who had been charitable was Larry, who
> felt that problem was real but had serious doubts about viability of your
> idea. 

Actually, this is what Larry said:

| One problem I see is that you'd be talking a huge amount of money,
| potentially money on Microsoft scale.  Managing that money, making
| it go to the right places, without it sticking to the fingers of
| management, isn't likely to happen.

This is not a problem of fundraising, but a problem of fund management
and policy. You get the funds, how you use them is another concern. 

| Another problem is that GPLed software is essentially software in the
| public domain. 

But we don't want less people using (for example), the Linux kernel. We
don't even want people who can't pay to pay. As long as a large enough
group pays, you're really better off.

And here is what Rik said:

| In the areas where open source software is doing well, there
| already is funding by interested parties (companies, government,
| universities, ...).

Meaning the kernel and some other OSS areas are already well funded.

| Some other areas won't ever get the funding through donations,
| simply because people will freeload whenever they can and try
| funding development as much as they can.  We've seen that with
| BitKeeper and you had to "tighten up" the license a bit in order
| to make sure development stayed funded.

Here he seems to be suggesting that certain areas of OSS that can't get
enough funds should either relicense, drop the towel or do it for the
love as a part time job. I am suggesting they could all relicense to a
single license that leverages each others work and centrally manages
fundraising (but not fundspendings). 

| In short, I believe the voluntary donations aren't needed in
| most areas people would donate to and won't make enough of an
| impact in the areas where they are needed.

Now he is poining out something that I had stated in my first message: 

On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 01:09:32PM -0300, Federico Ferreres wrote:
+ The Kernel may well be nicely funded ...
+ Why post it here then? Because for it to work it must be supported 
+ by at least some of the grand developements of OSS

... and has nothing to do with the ability to raise the funds. The
Kernel may not need the money but that it could help in a lot of areas
of OSS where a kickstart is needed (after which I am sure they will be
able to contribute funds back to the pool). 

Regarding your opinion on the pyramid nature of the system well that can
be forgiven :)

The real facts that I am aware are:

- the kernel doesn't need the money
- the idea of _enforcing_ payment may not be an option or what is wanted
- there are doubt's about how many people would end up paying
- it will not be easy to manage the funds and could have side effects
- it may be nearly imposible to relicense the kernel due to the large
number of people involved even if they wanted

But the last fact invalidates all others:

"The idea is discarded, nobody likes it"

Which is fine! And I certainly am at the wrong place, poluting a
developement list and wasting your time. So I'll stop replying to your
flames (even though I find them funny and creative :-)

Regards!

Federico