Re: Funding GPL projects or funding the GPL?

[Federico Ferreres]

On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 04:39, Hans Reiser wrote:

> Your idea has some merit in my opinion. I think that my version of it 
> that I presented at linuxworld some years ago, which is called an "Open 
> Sale", has some advantages.

Your description of the problem is perfect. The solution, though, is
difficult to enforce as there's not a single incentive for OEMs to fund
anyone else that MS (reinstalling Windows).

> My approach has the advantage that the fee scales with hardware costs, 
> and that it is set by users.

That's really an improvement over my idea (in the corporate area mostly.
In the home user area it doesn't matter, as he will probably use 1
computer at a time).

I can clearly see that a combination of both schemes would be needed,
because they are opposite sides of the same coin (your idea could be
though as an x% tax on hardware to fund developement, mine as a direct
payment from the users).

So one natural way of getting the best of both worlds would be:

- Hardware EOM could pay an x% per machine to the fGPL foundation, and
that would grant the buyer of that hardware a permanent license to all
fGPLd software. Users could request the OEM (IBM, etc) to offer them
that non-expiring (per machine) license instead of a preinstaled MS
Windows. This would mean OSS remains totaly free as in freedom and
_beer_.

- Hardware manufacturers that do NOT want to offer their customers that
option will be penalized because the user will have to pay the regular 1
year fGPL I have already described or get their hardware somewhere else.
This would create a great incentive for OEM to offer the fGPL license
instead of a preinstaled MS Windows. 

- If desired, all past hardware sales could be granted a free
non-expiring "per-machine" fGPL license (so you'll see funds starting
low and growing every year in size) so that there can be NO complains
from anyone. Maybe the grant (for old hardware) could be limited to
individuals, non-profit organizations, goverments and educational
institutions.

- Manufacturers will be granted the right to claim to be GNU, Linux or
OSS ready ONLY if they actively offer the fGPL license as choice to 
customers (instead of the preinstaled Windows). They could also be
required to include a "GNU/Linux ready" sticker in their hardware.

I believe this can be made to work in reasonable time, with minimun
effort and minimun hassle. There are problems, but they could be worked
out if there's support.

Everything else remains the same (as Hans and I have said, the users
will have a limited ability to chose what they need. I say limited
because for an Office application to work the core must remain funded
even though the user may not notice it).
 
> However, you should understand that an idea is not enough, you must have 
> sufficient sociological mass to pull it off.  Neither you nor I are in 
> that position at this time.   Most people will be hostile to you if you 
> propose an idea that you lack the sociological position to effectuate.....

Makes sense. But if the idea is good, the ones that can make a
difference will support it, assuming they analized what is being
proposed. 

> -- 
> Hans
>

I will (silently) put some resources on polishing the hard edges of
idea. It believe it may be worth it.

Federico

PS: I probably never reach the needed sociological position in OSS, so
at some point someone will have to help (if they believe it's a good
thing).