Rendre aux communs le produit des communs : la quête d’une licence réciproque | Sciences communes Après une longue interruption, je reprends doucement une activité sur ce carnet de recherche. Pour l’occasion, je retourne son titre, Sciences communes : non la science comme bien commun, mais l’étude scientifique des communs. Le première épisode de cette nouvelle série est dédié à l’un des principaux dispositifs envisagés pour pérenniser l’économie des communs : les licences réciproques. Comme leur nom l’indique, ces licences visent à restaurer une relation de réciprocité entre les secteur commercial et le mouvement des Communs. Nées d’un débat intellectuel international, les licences réciproques ont pris consistance au cours de l’année passée, dans le cadre du projet FLOK. Vers une saturation des communs ? Au cours de l’année passée, la thématique des communs a pris son envol. Paradoxalement, cette vague de vulgarisation intervient dans un moment d’essoufflement. Wikipédia constitue un cas d’école. Les contributeurs ne se sont pas résignés à ce constat. 1. 2. 3.
Business models for open-source software Funding Much unlike proprietary off-the-shelf software that come with restrictive licenses, open-source software is distributed freely, through the web and in physical media. Because creators cannot require each user to pay a license fee to fund development this way, a number of alternative development funding models have emerged. Software can be developed as a consulting project for one or more customers.[how?] Companies may employ developers to work on open-source projects that are useful to the company's infrastructure: in this case, it is developed not as a product to be sold but as a sort of shared public utility. A new funding approach for open-source projects is crowdfunding, organized over web platforms like Kickstarter, Indiegogo, or Bountysource. Challenges Open-source software can be sold and used in general commercially. Therefore, there is considerable debate about whether vendors can make a sustainable business from an open-source strategy. Approaches
Problems and Strategies in Financing Voluntary Free Software Projects :: Benjamin Mako Hill Benjamin Mako Hill firstname.lastname@example.org This is revision 0.2.1 of this file and was published on November 20, 2012. Revision 0.2 was published on June 10, 2005. Abstract It's easier for a successful volunteer Free Software project to get money than it is to decide how to spend it. Introduction The love of money is the root of all evil.— New Testament St. Using voluntary labor, free and open source software projects have become massive commercial successes. This paper aims to provide a guide for voluntary projects who want to fund development as a well a guide for funders wishing to work with and support these projects. Volunteerism in Free Software Projects In his famous announcement, Linus Torvalds referred to the Linux kernel project as "just for fun." As free software has been commercialized, paid labor has taken up an increasingly important role in the free software world and many free software projects today are built as works for hire and are released by corporations. Creative Solutions
The Second Open Company — Gratipay Blog Alexander Stigsen invented the “open company” in 2009 Gittip is a sustainable crowdfunding platform. We launched in June, 2012, and as of June, 2013 we have about 1,150 weekly active users exchanging $3,600 per week in small cash gifts. Soon after launch, I declared Gittip to be the first open company, which I defined according to three criteria: Share as much as possible.Charge as little as possible.Don’t compensate employees directly. Writing in July, 2012, I concluded: “I would be happy to learn about any existing open companies or similar entities. Today, thanks to an email from Patrick Jefferson, I am indeed happy to acknowledge that Alexander Stigsen invented the open company in March, 2009 with his company, E Text Editor. E’s site is defunct (here’s its Wikipedia), and the original blog post articulating Alexander’s open company vision is gone.
The perils of mixing open source and money (DHH) Fundraising for open source has become trivial through venues like Kickstarter, so it's natural more projects are asking for money. "Imagine all the good I could do if I was able to work on this full time for the benefit of the community". Yes, let's imagine indeed. First of all, it's tempting to cash in on goodwill earned. Prolific open sourcerers rightfully earn the gratitude and admiration of their community. Second, part of the reason much of open source is so good, and often so superior to closed-source commercial projects, is the natural boundary of constraints. But once there is money involved, work will expand to fill the amount raised (to paraphrase Parkinson's law). This problem is even true from the outset. But the most important issue I want to address is what happens when you change from social gratitude to market expectations in reaction to your work. External, expected rewards diminish the intrinsic motivation of the fundraising open-source contributor.
Resentment — Gratipay Blog From time to time it is suggested that Gittip is fatally flawed because it fosters resentment. David Heinemeier Hansson posted yesterday about “[t]he perils of mixing open source and money,” in which he pointed out problems with crowdfunding open-source. “We plant the seeds of discontent by selective monetary rewards,” he wrote, and in follow-on conversation, he said of Gittip specifically, “I think that’s exactly the shit I find devaluing and dangerous about mixing market and social. Yuck.” Gittip wants an economy characterized by collaboration and trust and love, so for Gittip to foster unresolved resentment is a problem. In this post I’d like to address the problem head-on. Approaching Resentment Resentment is a negative emotion, an internalized anger at a wrong done to me. Feeling resentment is a sign that something is wrong: with a social system, with a relationship, or with myself. This is so close to but so far from standard Internet vitriol. So what? Backwards Join a Team
The strange economics of open-source software - Vallified I always use the names of economists for my machines’ hostnames. keynes, friedman, marx, fisher, ricardo. So every so often the strange economics of open-source software hits me. Today it is almost taken for granted that the source code for most software is freely available. Where has all the closed-source software gone? Of course, it’s not gone. Within our industry it is becoming apparent that services — SaaS and companies such as Airbnb — are the future. The ever-increasing dominance of open-source The increasing dominance of open-source software seems particularly true with respect to infrastructure software. If you want to create a closed-source infrastructure solution, you better have an enormously compelling story, or be delivering it as part of a bigger package such as a software appliance. So where is the value? The real value is within the development team and its ideas, that the team behind the software are, and remain, innovative, execute well, and produce quality software.
The World’s Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who is Going Broke Update, Feb. 5, 2015, 8:10 p.m.: After this article appeared, Werner Koch informed us that last week he was awarded a one-time grant of $60,000 from Linux Foundation's Core Infrastructure Initiative. Werner told us he only received permission to disclose it after our article published. Meanwhile, since our story was posted, donations flooded Werner's website donation page and he reached his funding goal of $137,000. The man who built the free email encryption software used by whistleblower Edward Snowden, as well as hundreds of thousands of journalists, dissidents and security-minded people around the world, is running out of money to keep his project alive. Werner Koch wrote the software, known as Gnu Privacy Guard, in 1997, and since then has been almost single-handedly keeping it alive with patches and updates from his home in Erkrath, Germany. "I'm too idealistic," he told me in an interview at a hacker convention in Germany in December. The programs are also underfunded.