Want more open source software? Please give us feedback on our paid development model

[Yfrwlf]

I'm posting this question to various Linux forums in order to find other Linux users willing to give feedback. Even though this is technically a plug I guess, even though I dislike plugs this IS a topic of concern for Linux users, and all end-users of any OS, really. So, I feel this is appropriate to post here. I really do need feedback, so I'm asking for it! :)

If you could name the absolute biggest problem with Linux getting mainstream adoption, what would it be? But before you answer, that was a rhetorical question, just so you know, since that reply would be off-topic. ;) In my opinion the answer is a lack of software. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot for the most general areas of demand today. Browsing, movies, music, office productivity, email, chatting, etc. Not "a lot" in comparison to Windows, but we have some very good apps for those things. However, there are areas in which a lot of improvement is needed. For several things on the general desktop as well as perhaps a few things on the server side, Linux falls short in comparison to some of the current alternatives. In the niche markets this becomes even harder to deal with. In these areas, software can be exceptionally expensive. Not only that, but it's often very restrictive software so there is a high chance of vendor lock-in.

In addition to standard open source businesses which rely on revenue from support, and the independent development models, I have proposed another kind of model for your consideration. I would appreciate everyone's opinions about it if they have the time. To explain this model the best, or rather my dream of what this could be like, imagine the following:

You turn on your Linux-powered console or computer at home and load up a "software center" program of sorts (name not yet defined). Similar to Synaptic, Add/Remove Applications, Aptitude, Yum, whatever it is you use. Integration with those could even be possible but that's another subject. Like Click 'n Run, you'd be able to browse commercially available software as well as free software. However, we propose a third category: paid open source software. You could find out about upcoming projects, give your suggestions on what kind of software you'd like to see, and make a "purchase" for that software. After enough purchases were made and the development paid for, it would be released under the GPL or other Free Software licenses and available for automatic download and installation.

So here's my question for you. If you had a need for software that could not be quenched by current free offerings, and could decide between commercial software which is restrictive and proprietary, or paying for open source software which is free from restriction, which would you choose?

Since I believe consumers would rather enjoy the freedom of not being locked down to a single vendor and controlled, of having something they can freely modify and share if they wanted to, adding to the pool of free software that exists for others to use and build upon, I think they would choose the one without restrictions.

Imagine schools, corporations, merchants, artists, and any other group with a software need getting together and paying for the creation of software that they can all use. Instead of each paying thousands to different proprietary companies, they could pay to have something that would not vanish over time, or require large unfair payments for future versions. In short, monopolies and vendor lock-in takes much more money than is needed for software development from consumers and organizations by restricting competition. Having an open system that uses standards is cheaper for everyone.

This is why I've started the website Open Development Network (http://www.opendevelopmentnetwork.org) <--link. It's still very simple and in an alpha state, but I would like to hear feedback from anyone interested in this concept. If anyone is interested in the ODN project specifically, please come to the forums and find out how you can help out to make this dream a reality. So far contributions are from myself in my free time and friends, but if anyone else out there is interested we'd love your help.

Thanks in advance for your feedback!! :)

[justin whitaker]

Hmm...I have no issues paying for software if the software is worthwhile, but I think that most Linux users sort of bristle at a shareware model of development.

[maniacmusician]

If you could name the absolute biggest problem with Linux getting mainstream adoption, what would it be? But before you answer, that was a rhetorical question, just so you know, since that reply would be off-topic. ;) In my opinion the answer is a lack of software. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot for the most general areas of demand today. Browsing, movies, music, office productivity, email, chatting, etc. Not "a lot" in comparison to Windows, but we have some very good apps for those things. Ubuntu is a great replacement for most average users. However, there are areas in which a lot of improvement is needed. For several things on the general desktop, Linux falls short in comparison to current alternatives. In the niche markets this becomes even harder to deal with. In these areas, software can be exceptionally expensive. Not only that, but it's often very restrictive software so there is a high chance of vendor lock-in.

In addition to the standard open source business development and the independent development models, I have proposed another kind of model for your consideration. I would appreciate everyone's opinions about it if they have the time. To explain this model the best, or rather my dream of what this could be like, imagine the following:

You turn on your Linux-powered console or computer at home and load up a "software center" program of sorts (name not yet defined). Similar to Synaptic, Add/Remove Applications, Aptitude, Yum, whatever it is you use. Integration with those could even be possible but that's another subject. Like Click 'n Run, you'd be able to browse commercially available software as well as free software. However, we propose a third category: paid open source software.

Here's my question for you! If you had a need for software that could not be quenched by current free offerings, and could decide between commercial software which is restrictive and proprietary, or paying for open source software which is free from restriction, which would you choose?

Since I believe consumers would rather enjoy the freedom of not being locked down to a single vendor and controlled, of having something they can freely modify and share if they wanted to, adding to the pool of free software that exists for others to use and build upon, I think they would choose the one without restrictions.

Imagine schools, corporations, merchants, artists, and any other group with a software need getting together and paying for the creation of software that they can all use. Instead of each paying thousands to different proprietary companies, they could pay to have something that would not vanish over time, or require large unfair payments for future versions. In short, monopolies and vendor lock-in takes much more money than is needed for software development from consumers and organizations by restricting competition. Having an open system that uses standards is cheaper for everyone.

This is why I've started the website Open Development Network (http://www.opendevelopmentnetwork.org) <--link. It's still very simple and in an alpha state, but I would like to hear feedback from anyone interested in this concept. If anyone is interested in the ODN project specifically, please come to the forums and find out how you can help out to make this dream a reality. So far contributions are from myself in my free time and friends, but if anyone else out there is interested we'd love your help.

Thanks in advance for your feedback!! :)
It's a good idea. I'm not a developer, so I can't offer much help on that front, but I'm sure a lot of people (including myself) would pay for good open-source software. I'm worried though, that your goal may be entirely too broad. There's a lot of openings for software, and maybe it would be better to focus all your manpower on one. For example, multimedia editing is particularly lacking, video editing specifically. High quality financial software is also hard to find.

Right now, you're taking a passive approach to the problem. You're setting up a venue for developers and consumers to meet. That's a great idea, of course, but also very passive. If this is your intention and what you really want to do, that's cool. I hope it will produce some good results. But I also want someone to take an active approach to it.

An active approach would be to target a specific area, and mobilize yourself around that. For example, if you were to tackle financial software, you would set up a forum or a part of a forum, especially for that. You would talk to the communities that you're part of, and find people that can help; Accountants and people that know the rules of finance would be important, and also programmers. You can find programmers almost anywhere, there's plenty of them; but they often don't know exactly how a certain program should work. That's where the field experts, like accountants, come in. They would provide the know-how while the programmers would construct the program.

Active approaches generally produce faster, more focused results, whereas pasive approaches usually stay alive longer. So there's advantages and disadvantages to both, I suppose. Anyways, that's a pretty good job so far. I'll probably be signing up at the forums later, because I have a few ideas for programs I'd like to see developed :)

[maniacmusician]

Hmm...I have no issues paying for software if the software is worthwhile, but I think that most Linux users sort of bristle at a shareware model of development.
I don't think that's shareware. It's perfectly acceptable to charge for Open Source software.

[dfreer]

I wouldn't mind paying for software as long as it's:
(1) useful, and the price is reasonable
(2) I can use it on as many PC's and reinstall as much as I want, no restrictions
(3) I don't have to pay-per-month (*cough* Cedega)
(4) Software that's NEEDED. I'm not going to pay anything for a prettier music player, but one that has the selection iTunes Music Store has without the DRM? I would give them my soul.

[Yfrwlf]

I don't think that's shareware. It's perfectly acceptable to charge for Open Source software.

You're correct, and I made a few changes to the original post to highlight that point. It would be paying for software development, but what you would get is software free from any kind of restrictions. It would be released under the GPL or other Free Software license. Other future projects could then use existing code if they wanted to, and could create another project for improving upon (or making a sequel or expansion for, if it was a game) the software. Sorry for the confusion. :)

[ZylGadis]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=183298

[DC@DR]

Yes, I would definitely pay for the software if I think it's worth, and to be honest, I would search for FOSS alternatives first before reaching my own pocket :-)

[aurelm]

I looked at the ODN FAQ. From what I gather, it seems that ODN would operate on a sort of contract model where a group of people request something and a developer promises to make it in return for funds to develop it. After it's made, it would be free for anyone. Here's a bit of constructive criticism..
1. There is an issue of trust between the group requesting a product and the developer. Unless the developer is already well-known, odds are nobody will invest the money. But that raises the question: how does a developer get to be well-known in the first place? Even if a developer were well-known and trusted, I'd still be a bit hesitant paying money today for a product that may come several years down the line.
2. The model where you pay up front for software that others get to use freely means that some must pay so all benefit. Who is going to volunteer to pay for that software? On the other hand, if everyone must pay so that everyone gets it for free afterward (via a registration/subscription service), that's the same thing as the current model where you pay for a finished product.
3. Another hurdle is the idea that developers and users will flock to ODN. The Linux community is already fragmented by all the various builds out there. Why would this bring everyone together? Or is it just for Ubuntu? Regardless of who it's for, it will need a lot more publicity than a forum post to get people to support it en masse. That's not to say that a forum post is a bad start!

Also, let me answer the question you posted originally: If I had to choose between paying for the development of open source software or buying a piece of restrictive, proprietary software, I'd choose the latter. If possible, I would choose proprietary software that allowed me to make open source addons/mods to customize it for my needs. I would even pay for a finished open source software that did what I needed. Paying for open source software development just means that a few people who are more fed up with current offerings than others will end up bearing all development cost while others who hold out will reap the same benefits. There is also nothing saying that a paid developer would have to finish a product. The only thing that holds developers to production schedules now is that they need to make money from a final product. I just can't imagine the paid open source model being realistically feasible. I'll pay for something that I can see, otherwise it's an investment.

I do think that ODN is a noble effort and I wish you the best of luck getting it off the ground. I agree that it would give us many more open software titles if we could fund developers, but it's too hard knowing who to trust.

[koenn]

There is indeed nothing agains selling open source software. It isn't done often, because, being open source, the source code can be picked up easily, possibly modified, then compiled and packaged, and you may find that what you're trying to sell suddenly becomes available for free, or cheaper than what your customers paid for, or earlier than you can deliver because someone forked your project.

Then:

Imagine schools, corporations, merchants, artists, and any other group with a software need getting together and paying for the creation of software that they can all use.. This can easily become a nightmare. Ever tried to get 1 customer to explain to you what he expects a program to do ? Then imagine having to meet the functional requirements (and possible some pseudo-requirements) of a loose conglemerate of schools, corporations, and so on that al want this or that piece of software. Scary.


Lastly, I agree with maniacmisician about the active vs passive approach - from a slighhtly different perspective : There are many aspects to Open Source as a development model. One of them is that open source developers are often 'scratching a personal itch' that keeps them motivated. An other is that that open source relies on "survival of the fittest" to let only those projects that fill a need, and offer a sollution that best fits that need very well, to survive. The rest dies a quite death. Those two factors that contribute to the quality of open source software, are somewhat eliminated in your approach.

[Yfrwlf]

Yes, I would definitely pay for the software if I think it's worth, and to be honest, I would search for FOSS alternatives first before reaching my own pocket :-)

As would most, especially those who can't afford to do so. If there is a free alternative that meets your needs exactly, it would be foolish to choose anything else. However, I believe myself and others have a large craving for free software in areas in which not exists.

Gaming, for example. There will always be a need for newer, fresher games. I don't think the entertainment demand will ever fade, and open source is slowly providing some answers for that but it currently still lags way behind commercial game development. I would easily pay *extra* money even for a game that not only gave me more entertainment for my Linux desktop, but allowed me to make my own versions, my own customizations. Imagine if World of Warcraft was open sourced, the diversity of the worlds that different players would create. Imagine all the servers with alternative worlds that would exist. The development team could later go on to make improved sequels for it, too. It would all be money well-spent too, instead of going to some executive's Ferrari because it would allow much more transparent and fair competition.

Not that I play World of Warcraft. I really don't, actually, but if I could mold it how I wanted to I would. ;)

[maniacmusician]

3. Another hurdle is the idea that developers and users will flock to ODN. The Linux community is already fragmented by all the various builds out there. Why would this bring everyone together? Or is it just for Ubuntu? Regardless of who it's for, it will need a lot more publicity than a forum post to get people to support it en masse. That's not to say that a forum post is a bad start!

Well, seeing as how the point here is open source, it is most likely that the source code will be provided, which can be compiled on any distribution. The ODN could hire packagers for different distributions and they would release binaries, if that would please the users more. But before they can make expenses like that, I think that the ODN project would first have to take off and get a positive response.

There is indeed nothing agains selling open source software. It isn't done often, because, being open source, the source code can be picked up easily, possibly modified, then compiled and packaged, and you may find that what you're trying to sell suddenly becomes available for free, or cheaper than what your customers paid for, or earlier than you can deliver because someone forked your project.
I don't think any reputable developer would fork another project and charge money just for compiling it. This would be pretty low of them. And also, the product wouldn't be of the same caliber; it wouldn't be able to provide the same updates or provide improvements with feedback from customers

Then:
. This can easily become a nightmare. Ever tried to get 1 customer to explain to you what he expects a program to do ? Then imagine having to meet the functional requirements (and possible some pseudo-requirements) of a loose conglemerate of schools, corporations, and so on that al want this or that piece of software. Scary.

I assume that once the project gets popular, there will be a organized system for providing feedback. No one is expecting a developer to include every feature that a customer wants. The forums are there for communication. This is not a bounty based approach, but rather a feedback based approach. A developer can decide not to include certain features, that's perfectly fine; it just means that particular customer will not purchase the product.


Lastly, I agree with maniacmisician about the active vs passive approach - from a slighhtly different perspective : There are many aspects to Open Source as a development model. One of them is that open source developers are often 'scratching a personal itch' that keeps them motivated. An other is that that open source relies on "survival of the fittest" to let only those projects that fill a need, and offer a sollution that best fits that need very well, to survive. The rest dies a quite death. Those two factors that contribute to the quality of open source software, are somewhat eliminated in your approach.
It's true that the "personal itch" motivation is eliminated; but it is replaced by the motivation of an income. I think that even if an open source developer doesn't have a personal stake in a project, they'll still want to do the best job that they can and make their users happy. Besides, the idea of getting paid to do what you love is a very enticing one.

[maniacmusician]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=183298
That's different. ODN is a feedback based approach, not a bounty based approach. In other words, a consumer says "I wish I had this in a program". A developer can say "hmm, I can do that" or he can say "No, I don't want to implement that in my program." If the developer decides to not implement it, he misses out on the business of that customer, but he still has control over how he develops his program. But that doesn't mean other people won't buy that program even if it doesn't have those specific features.

Basically, this isn't an all-or-nothing approach like bounties, which say "put these features in a program, and I'll pay you this much!" The developer can make compromises, and do what he wants to do, and then charge a fair amount for it. A better approach, I think. Bounties have their place, definitely, but for most situations, I think this approach would work better.

[mech7]

this question is weird. why wouldn't you pay? 0_o

[koenn]

It's true that the "personal itch" motivation is eliminated; but it is replaced by the motivation of an income.

... but rather a feedback based approach. A developer can decide not to include certain features, that's perfectly fine; it just means that particular customer will not purchase the product
tricky.

[koenn]

2. The model where you pay up front for software that others get to use freely means that some must pay so all benefit. Who is going to volunteer to pay for that software?
This is a classic mistake. If you need (or really absolutely very much want to have) that piece of software, you'll pay for it, be it open source or proprietary, of the shelf or custom made. You're paying to get your problem solved.
How then does it hurt you in any way that that a piece of software that you financed the development of, afterwards becomes available for free ?

[yabbadabbadont]

This is a classic mistake. If you need (or really absolutely very much want to have) that piece of software, you'll pay for it, be it open source or proprietary, of the shelf or custom made. You're paying to get your problem solved.
How then does it hurt you in any way that that a piece of software that you financed the development of, afterwards becomes available for free ?

Try telling that to just about every "for profit" software company in the world... ;)

[koenn]

Try telling that to just about every "for profit" software company in the world... ;)
I didn't get the ;)

You have to see this from a buyer's perspective.
Say my car breaks down, and I really need a car for my job, to make a living. I go and buy me a car.
Ywoo weeks later, it's your birthday and someone gives you a car.

Does your getting the car for free make me have any less car ? Does your getting a car for free alter the fact that I needed to buy car in order to keep on making a living ?

[Yfrwlf]

I looked at the ODN FAQ. From what I gather, it seems that ODN would operate on a sort of contract model where a group of people request something and a developer promises to make it in return for funds to develop it. After it's made, it would be free for anyone. Here's a bit of constructive criticism..
1. There is an issue of trust between the group requesting a product and the developer. Unless the developer is already well-known, odds are nobody will invest the money. But that raises the question: how does a developer get to be well-known in the first place? Even if a developer were well-known and trusted, I'd still be a bit hesitant paying money today for a product that may come several years down the line.
2. The model where you pay up front for software that others get to use freely means that some must pay so all benefit. Who is going to volunteer to pay for that software? On the other hand, if everyone must pay so that everyone gets it for free afterward (via a registration/subscription service), that's the same thing as the current model where you pay for a finished product.
3. Another hurdle is the idea that developers and users will flock to ODN. The Linux community is already fragmented by all the various builds out there. Why would this bring everyone together? Or is it just for Ubuntu? Regardless of who it's for, it will need a lot more publicity than a forum post to get people to support it en masse. That's not to say that a forum post is a bad start!

Also, let me answer the question you posted originally: If I had to choose between paying for the development of open source software or buying a piece of restrictive, proprietary software, I'd choose the latter. If possible, I would choose proprietary software that allowed me to make open source addons/mods to customize it for my needs. I would even pay for a finished open source software that did what I needed. Paying for open source software development just means that a few people who are more fed up with current offerings than others will end up bearing all development cost while others who hold out will reap the same benefits. There is also nothing saying that a paid developer would have to finish a product. The only thing that holds developers to production schedules now is that they need to make money from a final product. I just can't imagine the paid open source model being realistically feasible. I'll pay for something that I can see, otherwise it's an investment.

I do think that ODN is a noble effort and I wish you the best of luck getting it off the ground. I agree that it would give us many more open software titles if we could fund developers, but it's too hard knowing who to trust.

Thanks a bunch for your feedback. The FAQ and About pages may be somewhat convoluted at the moment.

Your concerns are those that I had a while back when struggling with this concept. It started off with the "contract" idea, but trust would be a huge issue unless there were ways to legally make it safe. That is, if you are paying the developers before the software is finished. I just renamed the "contracts" forum board to "legal", instead. An idea was suggested by jaydown was to have pledges. A promise to pay. This may be part of the final site, but I also wanted something more firm. The idea we're playing with now is using "points", where you could purchase them and then place them on a project. ODN could make sure that the project that was promised was delivered before paying the development team, but the specifics of that situation still needs to be discussed on the forums. You are right though that if consumers want to pay for a project before it's finished, there would need to be protections in place for them, and on the developer site they would want to have the best idea possible that they would get paid. I believe that paying near the end or at the end of a project would be the most common, while the eager consumers could pay earlier. As for when ODN would in turn pay the developers, that's also up for discussion. :)

I started a new thread on the ODN forums about that issue.

Point #2: I also grappled with this point as well, and I believe that this isn't an issue and here's why. After a software project is finished, it could go up for a "payment period". During this period, payments would need to be made in order to fund the project, and the status of payments and how many remain could be shown. I too wondered if perhaps there would be users waiting up until the last possible moment before paying, but I believe that once ODN became popular enough that this would not be an issue. The motive is wanting the software. I believe a lot of users would place payments shortly after the release of the software, and you could perhaps provide some type of benefit for paying users, but I don't think there would be a big focus on that. Perhaps the development team could be creative somehow in coming up with some fun "perk" though ;)

#3: Fully agreed! To really get something like this started you need a large interest, and thus one of the main focuses of ODN will be an attractive interface for the end-user. Projects will also have to start off small, perhaps some smaller modifications and added content to existing open source applications. This project of course needs to be cross-distro, and I believe cross-platform as well. This will be a tricky idea, but basically I feel that developing for a free system in order to bring full freedom to end-users should be a focus, but that porting to other platforms could easily be a separate project, or a "sub-project". Or, it could be done by others after the source is released, which is perfectly possible especially if the alternate platform conforms to similar standards like openGL for games, etc. Cross-distro is a must though, but I don't believe it to be a big hurdle, and there is the possibility of incorporating somehow with the Click 'N Run project as the interface they are developing is similar in design to our concepts.

As for your last paragraph, I don't really understand where you state, "I would even pay for a finished open source software that did what I needed." That is exactly what is going on here. If you wish, I could hide the fact that you would be paying for the development of the software, however it would be the same thing. Open source software means the source is open, so you could get it and compile it for free if you wanted. You could still pay for it after it was released, but in the case of ODN it wouldn't be released until the development was paid for. Where you said, "Paying for open source software development just means that a few people who are more fed up with current offerings than others will end up bearing all development cost while others who hold out will reap the same benefits.", that's correct, the rich can afford to buy software, while the poor should not be kept from being able to reap the same benefits. This is a paid model though, and neither will benefit unless those who want to pay for software pay for it. Since I am willing to pay for open source software which otherwise won't be created for many years to come, I would be one of the first in line. I understand your possible annoyance with this system, but the fact still remains that you have a choice: pay or don't pay, and if not enough pay, you won't get the software. Again, I believe many are interested in paying for new OSS. You would not have to pay until the project was finished, but you would have the option to pay before then.

I hope I've address the issue of trust. I think in this new model concept, "trust" isn't an issue, only trust in ODN. Because ODN will be a reputable company held to the laws of the US for fair business practices, and if it gets big would be similar to Amazon or any other online store, I don't believe trust will be a problem if the rules are laid down. :)

Again, thanks for the ideas and feedback!

[Yfrwlf]

There is indeed nothing agains selling open source software. It isn't done often, because, being open source, the source code can be picked up easily, possibly modified, then compiled and packaged, and you may find that what you're trying to sell suddenly becomes available for free, or cheaper than what your customers paid for, or earlier than you can deliver because someone forked your project.

Then:
. This can easily become a nightmare. Ever tried to get 1 customer to explain to you what he expects a program to do ? Then imagine having to meet the functional requirements (and possible some pseudo-requirements) of a loose conglemerate of schools, corporations, and so on that al want this or that piece of software. Scary.


Lastly, I agree with maniacmisician about the active vs passive approach - from a slighhtly different perspective : There are many aspects to Open Source as a development model. One of them is that open source developers are often 'scratching a personal itch' that keeps them motivated. An other is that that open source relies on "survival of the fittest" to let only those projects that fill a need, and offer a sollution that best fits that need very well, to survive. The rest dies a quite death. Those two factors that contribute to the quality of open source software, are somewhat eliminated in your approach.

Here is where the name Open Development Network could cause some confusion and I may consider changing it, but what it means is open "development network", not "open development" network. The development is closed, but the network is open to projects and the projects are for "open" software. The reason for the name choice was that "osdn.*" was taken (as is odn.*), and opensourcedevelopmentnetwork.org would be waaaaaaaaaaay too long, which it is already. I'm still searching for alternative names but for now that's what we have. :)

I understand it's difficult to agree on something sometimes, but I believe that many organizations have similar needs and could come up with a similar program that could later be custom tailored to their specific needs. They could even pay a support or development team privately for such customizations or could perhaps pay Red Hat, Novell, or Canonical.

My goal isn't to directly develop open source software unless it pertains to ODN, but instead ODN's goal is to give paid projects a place to get attention and provide users with a simple way to access them. Websites like Sourceforge and others already provide this for normal open source projects.

[ZylGadis]

That's different. ODN is a feedback based approach, not a bounty based approach. In other words, a consumer says "I wish I had this in a program". A developer can say "hmm, I can do that" or he can say "No, I don't want to implement that in my program." If the developer decides to not implement it, he misses out on the business of that customer, but he still has control over how he develops his program. But that doesn't mean other people won't buy that program even if it doesn't have those specific features.

Basically, this isn't an all-or-nothing approach like bounties, which say "put these features in a program, and I'll pay you this much!" The developer can make compromises, and do what he wants to do, and then charge a fair amount for it. A better approach, I think. Bounties have their place, definitely, but for most situations, I think this approach would work better.

I see no difference. According to your description, ODN is based on relaxed bounties. Read the thread I referenced carefully (not just the first post). The discussion there is extensive, and covers everything proposed here (and quite a lot more).

To whoever is responsible for the ODN site: you have something at the top that requires my browser to have a Flash plugin to display. It is a very bad idea to require GNU/Linux users and developers (which are your target) to have Flash. I usually do not visit sites with Flash on them more than once.

[esaym]

I don't think any program or software should cost over $50 (unless it is very specific and commercialized)

I hate licenses too.

[Yfrwlf]

I don't think any program or software should cost over $50 (unless it is very specific and commercialized)

I hate licenses too.

I agree, I believe the cost is much higher than it should be and believe that the commercial software industry (not to mention many other industries) makes a massive net profit from it. For a project hosted on ODN, they could use the number of votes a project has received as an indicator for the amount per user they may need to charge.

[Yfrwlf]

It's a good idea. I'm not a developer, so I can't offer much help on that front, but I'm sure a lot of people (including myself) would pay for good open-source software. I'm worried though, that your goal may be entirely too broad. There's a lot of openings for software, and maybe it would be better to focus all your manpower on one. For example, multimedia editing is particularly lacking, video editing specifically. High quality financial software is also hard to find.

Right now, you're taking a passive approach to the problem. You're setting up a venue for developers and consumers to meet. That's a great idea, of course, but also very passive. If this is your intention and what you really want to do, that's cool. I hope it will produce some good results. But I also want someone to take an active approach to it.

An active approach would be to target a specific area, and mobilize yourself around that. For example, if you were to tackle financial software, you would set up a forum or a part of a forum, especially for that. You would talk to the communities that you're part of, and find people that can help; Accountants and people that know the rules of finance would be important, and also programmers. You can find programmers almost anywhere, there's plenty of them; but they often don't know exactly how a certain program should work. That's where the field experts, like accountants, come in. They would provide the know-how while the programmers would construct the program.

Active approaches generally produce faster, more focused results, whereas pasive approaches usually stay alive longer. So there's advantages and disadvantages to both, I suppose. Anyways, that's a pretty good job so far. I'll probably be signing up at the forums later, because I have a few ideas for programs I'd like to see developed :)

I understand what you mean by passive and active. However, I believe that laying down the framework to allow active projects to step in is addressing a problem and that it will be "active" once ODN becomes attractive enough and gains attention. :) If you mean the direction and activity of the administrators and contributors to ODN itself, the direction/need at the moment is to get to that point of being popular, which means an attractive website interface for end-users and developers, and providing the tools and services to make it as easy as possible for projects to be displayed there and for consumers to find, comment about, and pay for open source software.

Thanks a bunch for your suggestions, they are helpful to have, and thanks for signing up. I hope that we eventually will have more to show than just a CMS, forum, and some descriptions about ODN. ;)

[Nils Olav]

lol, kind of like holding software for ransom.

[Yfrwlf]

I assume that once the project gets popular, there will be a organized system for providing feedback. No one is expecting a developer to include every feature that a customer wants. The forums are there for communication. This is not a bounty based approach, but rather a feedback based approach. A developer can decide not to include certain features, that's perfectly fine; it just means that particular customer will not purchase the product.


It's true that the "personal itch" motivation is eliminated; but it is replaced by the motivation of an income. I think that even if an open source developer doesn't have a personal stake in a project, they'll still want to do the best job that they can and make their users happy. Besides, the idea of getting paid to do what you love is a very enticing one.

Exactly, communication beforehand will allow both sides to define what they want, and reach an agreement on a project they'd all be willing to see developed for the right cost. Basically, it'd be like a free market without restrictions, except both sides are willing to talk to each other instead of developers trying to guess what the market wants. They may be possible later on, but getting feedback and utilizing this "new" thing called the Internet for communication is a much better approach than guessing. If you do have a single place where people can go to do both download, purchase, vote, and make suggestions about software, it helps everyone.

As for the personal itch, that is one motivation for developing software indeed, and another is money so that you can do it full-time, like you said. For some it's a hobby, for others they'd like to do it professionally. The exciting solution here is that it gives those users who cannot program an outlet. With open source software you have to normally be a programmer, or you have to pay for service from an open source software vendor. This allows you get at the software you want directly. Think of the open source software developers at one end of the spectrum and commercial vendors at the other. The commercial developers make loads of extra money on software sales. They aren't in the least interested in making open source software and rely on a different model. They make too much money to be interested in that, and the normal, non-programming consumer is left stranded in the middle, or forced to one extreme or the other. Do I want to be locked in and buy software that's way too expensive, or do I want to settle with what exists freely now and hope that someday *all* of my needs will be accounted for, perhaps donating money to some random projects here and there? There are lots of innovative open source projects out there tackling our needs which is awesome, and I'd simply like to help them out by adding more code to that giant free pool of code, and also addressing the needs of the stranded consumer in the middle more directly who may not be satisfied right now.

I think there are many users out there like that.

Free software is empowering for users, so lets let users empower free software development in return, in every way we can.

[Yfrwlf]

I didn't get the ;)

You have to see this from a buyer's perspective.
Say my car breaks down, and I really need a car for my job, to make a living. I go and buy me a car.
Ywoo weeks later, it's your birthday and someone gives you a car.

Does your getting the car for free make me have any less car ? Does your getting a car for free alter the fact that I needed to buy car in order to keep on making a living ?

I do not believe this will be an issue especially with projects which are very popular. In smaller ones, there may be more reluctance, but I think it can be worked out because like you said koenn, if you want/need the software, since it will be a requirement for a certain amount of funds to be paid towards it before receiving it, I think it's a much better alternative to commercial software, so it will be done. Besides, the whole point of the communication beforehand is to make sure it is wanted, through voting or whatever system ODN creates.

As things continue to roll forward it will be especially neat. Most people don't realize it, but when they purchase commercial software, they are burning their money in several ways when compared to this model or to other open source software models, but one of those ways is because they are paying for a total rework of code. In other words, proprietary software not only legally restricts your freedom, but it also causes problems on the other end unless they found free code to use. Sometimes code is licensed for use in their software, but that raises prices too. ODN, however, will be able to make software more and more cheaply due to being able to use existing code. One of the great benefits of OSS. Complete rework from scratch may be necessary in some areas, but if it's needed by consumers, at least some may be willing to pay to help it get created. :)

If anyone wonders if developers could eventually put themselves out of work through OSS, that's far from true. Especially in the entertainment area, there will always be a want for new and fresh, and all programs need to be updated eventually as expectations forever increase.

[Yfrwlf]

I see no difference. According to your description, ODN is based on relaxed bounties. Read the thread I referenced carefully (not just the first post). The discussion there is extensive, and covers everything proposed here (and quite a lot more).

To whoever is responsible for the ODN site: you have something at the top that requires my browser to have a Flash plugin to display. It is a very bad idea to require GNU/Linux users and developers (which are your target) to have Flash. I usually do not visit sites with Flash on them more than once.

If you have Gnash installed, it's supposed to be compatible with Flash up to version 7. The flash on my site was written with version 6, so should be compatible in theory but I haven't tried it out yet. Perhaps I've heard wrong. If you do install Gnash, I'd be interested in hearing if it's viewable with it.

[Yfrwlf]

lol, kind of like holding software for ransom.

Correct, except there is no ill will, but a desire for faster development. :) Free software is created at the end according to what people need, and developers get a contract job. Win-win.

[aurelm]

I can understand that somebody who is relatively wealthy can fund open source in order that everyone, even the less wealthy, can benefit from it. However...

@koenn: The car example isn't the same thing. We can imagine a car as being a piece of proprietary software. I buy WoW today, you get it next week for your birthday. That's ok. Let me offer a different example. This is a true story. During my senior year of college, my roommate and I shared a set of dishes. Let's consider clean dishes to be open source software because once they are clean anybody can use them. The act of washing the dishes can be software development. How often do you suppose those dishes got washed? Right, nobody wants to wash dishes for you, even if they've got the time and you don't. By the same logic, nobody wants to pay for software that you're going to get for free, even if they've got the money. There are very few people out there for whom money is so expendable that they'll basically donate it to buy you software, and those folks don't surf this forum. Even if they did, they'd find something else to give the money to.

@Yfrwlf: In theory, I agree that open source software should be the golden standard. The same thing should apply to music, movies, writing: any sort of media. The same thing should apply to consumables: food, clothing, cars, houses. If everybody offered their services for free to everybody else, then everybody would get what they need. In theory, socialism is a splendid idea. In practice, it didn't work out so well. Why? Human nature. People are greedy. Nobody wants to be the one to give money just because they can (see my above response to koenn). Everybody wants to sucker the other guy into a deal that benefits themselves.

So suppose there's 100,000 Linux users who want a WoW port. Now suppose that to pay for development of that port, we'd need to raise $1,000,000. We're not talking about all the bureaucratic crap that's usually associated with porting software. That's one million bucks straight to the programmers and designers. I'm sure that if you advertised a prize like that you could get a team to do it, or even get a team to design a WoW clone from scratch. That's just $10 each. No big deal, right? I'm guessing you couldn't get 100,000 people to give $10 each, even if they want that software, because they know that if they hold out just a little bit longer the next sucker will pay their $10 and then they can have the software for free.

When I said that I'd donate money to a developer to work on open source software, I meant that in the sense that I'd donate money to a good cause. I'm not expecting something in return, I just want to promote the cause because it gives me warm fuzzies. I'd also buy a piece of open source software for the same reason. I know I can get it for free, but I'm giving the developer some money for their service because I think it's a good service. To me this is no different than supporting any good developer by buying their software rather than pirating it. I may not agree with their closed-source practice, but I understand their need to eat and I want them to go on eating because they've done a fine job on the software I've been using and decided to buy from them. I'm not paying them for the specific purpose of making another piece of software, though I would be happy if they did.

On the other hand, the contract/agreement/bounty model does annoy me as you mentioned, because it makes me feel like I'm playing chicken with the 100,000 other users who want the same product I do. Who will give in first? Who will pay the $10? I don't want things like that keeping me up at night. Just make the software and if it's good I'll pay for it.

That gives me an idea for a business model. How about instead of the bounty thing, you have a pool of money. I wouldn't be paying for development, I'd be donating to a good cause, your organization. The organization holds on to the money and watches its forums for interaction between users' requests and developers' ideas. Eventually, a developer will come to you for money. At that point the request becomes a public petition where the amount and a description of the project gets posted and it would require a certain number of signatures, depending on the amount of money requested, to pass. Once it passes you give them the money and the petition becomes a contract (with a whole lot of witnesses). Why would I pay for this rather than paying for the specific development of a program? Because this lets me support a cause without making me feel like I'm getting ripped off. I'd see you as a non-profit publishing house supporting open source development as a whole. I'd pay you because you support good titles, not because I want to see a specific title in the future. Does that make sense? I think people would feel better about a system like that. What do you think?

[koenn]

I
@koenn: The car example isn't the same thing. We can imagine a car as being a piece of proprietary software. I buy WoW today, you get it next week for your birthday. That's ok. Let me offer a different example. This is a true story. During my senior year of college, my roommate and I shared a set of dishes. Let's consider clean dishes to be open source software because once they are clean anybody can use them. The act of washing the dishes can be software development. How often do you suppose those dishes got washed? Right, nobody wants to wash dishes for you, even if they've got the time and you don't. By the same logic, , even if they've got the money. There are very few people out there for whom money is so expendable that they'll basically donate it to buy you software, and those folks don't surf this forum. Even if they did, they'd find something else to give the money to.
I don't understand your analogy - or it's wrong. Dishes get dirty when you use them, and they need washing. Copies of software don't.


nobody wants to pay for software that you're going to get for free If a particular program doesn't exist but you need it, you might want to pay to have it created. It's that or no program.
However, once it exists, and you already have your copy, what's the harm in having other people have a copy as well - even for free. It doesn't need to be created again, there's no additional cost (except distribution costs maybe) and it's not as if somene is gonna take your program away to give it to someone else.

[dfreer]

However, once it exists, and you already have your copy, what's the harm in having other people have a copy as well - even for free. It doesn't need to be created again, there's no additional cost (except distribution costs maybe) and it's not as if somene is gonna take your program away to give it to someone else.

That's kinda of what I think. Let's say I REALLY need xyz software. I go to ODN or whatever, say "Hey, here's $50. This is what I need." Someone else sees the bounty for xyz software, decides they would like to have it too, and donates $10 (and so on and so forth). Some programmer comes along, makes the software, and claims all the money. Then myself and anyone else can download the software for free, make improvements to it, post it back to ODN. If anyone comes along and says "Hey, that xyz software really helped me out!", they donate some money and that goes back to the original programmer.
Sounds good to me.

[salsafyren]

I think this is a great idea.

I am more than willing to pay for software even though it becomes free after its creation.

Also, I think there is great potential in this because since the software is Free Software, anybody can setup a company to charge for support.

If Company A which sells a piece of proprietary software and their support sucks, I have to use another product. If the software was Free another company could support the software. Great win for the customer.

So not only will your idea create a lot of Free software, but also opportunities for support companies.

I wish you the best.

[Yfrwlf]

@Yfrwlf: In theory, I agree that open source software should be the golden standard. The same thing should apply to music, movies, writing: any sort of media. The same thing should apply to consumables: food, clothing, cars, houses. If everybody offered their services for free to everybody else, then everybody would get what they need. In theory, socialism is a splendid idea. In practice, it didn't work out so well. Why? Human nature. People are greedy. Nobody wants to be the one to give money just because they can (see my above response to koenn). Everybody wants to sucker the other guy into a deal that benefits themselves.

So suppose there's 100,000 Linux users who want a WoW port. Now suppose that to pay for development of that port, we'd need to raise $1,000,000. We're not talking about all the bureaucratic crap that's usually associated with porting software. That's one million bucks straight to the programmers and designers. I'm sure that if you advertised a prize like that you could get a team to do it, or even get a team to design a WoW clone from scratch. That's just $10 each. No big deal, right? I'm guessing you couldn't get 100,000 people to give $10 each, even if they want that software, because they know that if they hold out just a little bit longer the next sucker will pay their $10 and then they can have the software for free.


The options here are to pay for it, or not. If it's not paid for, it can't be delivered. Since the project wouldn't be created unless the team was sure there was interest in paying for it, I don't think this will be a problem. I actually have an idea to encourage *more* people to pay than needed, and the additional funds causing the price per user to decrease. That way, the more who pay, the lower it would be for everyone, providing an interesting incentive, but we'll see. :)


When I said that I'd donate money to a developer to work on open source software, I meant that in the sense that I'd donate money to a good cause. I'm not expecting something in return, I just want to promote the cause because it gives me warm fuzzies. I'd also buy a piece of open source software for the same reason. I know I can get it for free, but I'm giving the developer some money for their service because I think it's a good service. To me this is no different than supporting any good developer by buying their software rather than pirating it. I may not agree with their closed-source practice, but I understand their need to eat and I want them to go on eating because they've done a fine job on the software I've been using and decided to buy from them. I'm not paying them for the specific purpose of making another piece of software, though I would be happy if they did.
(cut/paste)
That gives me an idea for a business model. How about instead of the bounty thing, you have a pool of money. I wouldn't be paying for development, I'd be donating to a good cause, your organization. The organization holds on to the money and watches its forums for interaction between users' requests and developers' ideas. Eventually, a developer will come to you for money. At that point the request becomes a public petition where the amount and a description of the project gets posted and it would require a certain number of signatures, depending on the amount of money requested, to pass. Once it passes you give them the money and the petition becomes a contract (with a whole lot of witnesses). Why would I pay for this rather than paying for the specific development of a program? Because this lets me support a cause without making me feel like I'm getting ripped off. I'd see you as a non-profit publishing house supporting open source development as a whole. I'd pay you because you support good titles, not because I want to see a specific title in the future. Does that make sense? I think people would feel better about a system like that. What do you think?The general public on ODN would also be educated in that the software purchased there would be free from restrictions, making it a good cause as well. I don't see how someone could see it as a bad thing. Paying a developer so they can program full-time is a fine alternative and empowers people with money but no skills at development. The only difference here between donating to a pool and donating to a specific development project is it's focus. One is more specific, one is less-so. Donations to a "normal" open source project would have to be for the exact same thing, paying the developers so they could be better or fully supported while developing something full or part time. It's the same thing essentially, but one is specific and more controlled, while the other is not and could have more trust issues in my opinion. While I would like to trust everyone, there are some scams out there. For instance the recent Linux Indy500 scam. If a developer wishes to program software for a job instead of doing something else for money, this gives them one of several different opportunities they'd have for doing so.

I think your idea is a good one, one that could work, but I am not sure how common it would be. I think it could definitely be an option though on ODN. We could have a donations section where your name could be displayed or remain anonymous along with perhaps the amount donated. Then, a project that gains high popularity and seems to have a high need could do what you suggested and receive part of the donation pool. This would be good for people who wished to donate to open source software in general instead of a specific program's development. Again, I'm not sure how many people would wish to do this instead of just focus on specific programs, but having that option sounds like a good idea to me.


On the other hand, the contract/agreement/bounty model does annoy me as you mentioned, because it makes me feel like I'm playing chicken with the 100,000 other users who want the same product I do. Who will give in first? Who will pay the $10? I don't want things like that keeping me up at night. Just make the software and if it's good I'll pay for it. I understand your concern, but I think with certain mechanisms in place, there would not be a sniping issue at hand. Purchase commitments could be prevented from being withdrawn. I think it's a legitimate concern, you don't want to let it become a competition or sniping match or anything like that. Just like ebay found ways to prevent sniping, I believe ODN can find ways to display project funding and purchasing in a positive way that encourages payments to be donated. After all, everyone *wants* their software, and if they've been watching a project as it develops, they probably will want to start using it after it is finished. I believe the mere effect of needing to wait will be an incentive. The whole voting/purchasing system could be made into a very complex system, but hopefully we'll be able to find a simple solution to avoid confusion while not making people feel like their purchase was a "waste" in any way.

Thanks a bunch for your comments, and sorry for the rambling ^^ Again, if you know of anyone else who may be interested in helping this project get moving and gaining attention, please send them to http://www.opendevelopmentnetwork.org

[Nils Olav]

What's the license going to say? Is it something like: "Only blah blah may compile this software or any derivatives of it. After blah blah this software changes its license to the blah license."?

[Yfrwlf]

That's kinda of what I think. Let's say I REALLY need xyz software. I go to ODN or whatever, say "Hey, here's $50. This is what I need." Someone else sees the bounty for xyz software, decides they would like to have it too, and donates $10 (and so on and so forth). Some programmer comes along, makes the software, and claims all the money. Then myself and anyone else can download the software for free, make improvements to it, post it back to ODN. If anyone comes along and says "Hey, that xyz software really helped me out!", they donate some money and that goes back to the original programmer.
Sounds good to me.

Hmm sort of similar to aurelm's idea, except it's giving money to a specific developer or team to say good job, but after the project is finished, instead. Entirely possible to implement. :) It's very possible though that the same team or developer could come back to work on another project to further add features or to work on something else, and you'd be helping them out by helping fund that project as well plus helping the creation of more OSS for everyone. ;) There are many ways to look at it, and these things are entirely possible to implement. Thanks for your suggestion. ^^

[Yfrwlf]

I think this is a great idea.

I am more than willing to pay for software even though it becomes free after its creation.

Also, I think there is great potential in this because since the software is Free Software, anybody can setup a company to charge for support.

If Company A which sells a piece of proprietary software and their support sucks, I have to use another product. If the software was Free another company could support the software. Great win for the customer.

So not only will your idea create a lot of Free software, but also opportunities for support companies.

I wish you the best.

I think that it will open a lot of doors, you're right. For example, lets take the development of an open source MMORPG as an example. You could have several servers that host the default world group together and make their own service to pay for the bandwidth. There would be free servers too of course, and in an unrelated note perhaps you could make a program to connect several servers virtually so that you could serve the game similar to how torrents work, but any way. You'd have other groups which created their own alterations on the game and hosted their own servers. You'd have that same development team or other teams come back and propose paid development projects for creating a very content-rich "expansion", or even a sequel.

As for product support as far as patching bugs and such, I think ODN would definitely need to specify a certain level of code cleanliness so that releases would have few bugs. You could perhaps have some kind of support payment put into the project, so that the payments would go to development of that projects *plus* some additional funding for a certain period of paid support. Or, someone else could come out and suggest a project for patching or updating some software. Or, like you mentioned, you could have a company just charge a flat cost for some kind of support. There are many different possibilities. :) You are right that proprietary software sucks for that reason. With proprietary software, there's so much lock-in due to license terms that in effect it's a "monopoly" on a certain product for things like support, meaning their support could really suck. Sure, you can sometimes find support from other companies, but without access to the source code their support would be quite limited.

Glad you hear you're interested, there's enough positive feedback that I'm definitely going to give this project my all. The main work to get ODN running will be in site design, PHP/MySQL/CSS/etc, so if you know any web developers I'd love to have their opinions or support. :) Thanks a bunch for your feedback!

[Yfrwlf]

What's the license going to say? Is it something like: "Only blah blah may compile this software or any derivatives of it. After blah blah this software changes its license to the blah license."?

It could, but honestly, I do not know. Perhaps no license would be needed until the end? I am no lawyer, and how we could work this out in the most painless way possible is still to be contemplated. There is a legal section on the ODN forums though for discussion about this and other legal issues, though we're still at least a few months from having to worry about it I think, depending on the speed at which ODN grows and gains attention.