You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Shannon Jacobs <sh...@alumni.rice.edu> on 2012/06/17 06:51:10 UTC
Would like to help, but...
Feels like I should start by saying that I'm actually one of those weirdos
who used to pay for shareware and such. I admit that I mostly used the
freely available software freely and without paying for it, but there were
also a number of times that I paid for the premium versions, and even a
couple of times when I paid the ransom after the free trial period had
expired. Unfortunately, I never felt that I got more by donating and in
most cases the programs in question soon disappeared anyway. I mostly
concluded that competent programmers aren't going to stay with that
economic model. My best guess is that some of them were hoping to strike it
rich, but they didn't, so they gave up. However, why would I want them to
help them strike it rich, even if their program was great? I don't Las
Vegas economic models, either.
Meanwhile, I hate the anti-freedom anti-choice policies of Microsoft,
Apple, Oracle, and increasingly the google, too. However, their economic
models work.
I would prefer to support you with some money, but I still doubt you'll
survive. Actually, the Sun fiasco has had me using LibreOffice most of the
time these days...
What I would like is an option to pay by the feature on a small project
basis. I would buy one or more shares in features that I wanted, where the
project budget would include such things as testing and programmer time,
etc. The new features would be selected as enough people agreed to pay for
them. The structure I would suggest would actually leave you holding the
money as a kind of charity stock brokerage. Some of the projects might
involve support in various forms, of course.
However I've been advocating this sort of thing for some years. The closest
thing I've seen is Kickstarter, but they seem to be completely lacking in
project management. My suggestion would be more like "reverse auction
charity shares". Unless someone does something like that, I'm not likely to
donate again... I'm convinced the economic model is as important as the
software.
--
Freedom. It's about meaningful and unconstrained choice, not beer.
Re: Would like to help, but...
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
I don't think this a case of a "troll" - it is an opportunity to describe the ASF as software for the public good. As a non-profit. The OP's idea is not too bad and if developers were interested then they could work on it on their own outside the project. If the submitted patches are accepted the enhancement would make it in, but there are no guarantees and money is in no way a deciding factor. Technical merit is the criteria.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please do not feed the troll. Thanks.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Shannon Jacobs <sh...@alumni.rice.edu>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:51 AM
>> Subject: Would like to help, but...
>>
>> Feels like I should start by saying that I'm actually one of those weirdos
>> who used to pay for shareware and such. I admit that I mostly used the
>> freely available software freely and without paying for it, but there were
>> also a number of times that I paid for the premium versions, and even a
>> couple of times when I paid the ransom after the free trial period had
>> expired. Unfortunately, I never felt that I got more by donating and in
>> most cases the programs in question soon disappeared anyway. I mostly
>> concluded that competent programmers aren't going to stay with that
>> economic model. My best guess is that some of them were hoping to strike it
>> rich, but they didn't, so they gave up. However, why would I want them to
>> help them strike it rich, even if their program was great? I don't Las
>> Vegas economic models, either.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I hate the anti-freedom anti-choice policies of Microsoft,
>> Apple, Oracle, and increasingly the google, too. However, their economic
>> models work.
>>
>> I would prefer to support you with some money, but I still doubt you'll
>> survive. Actually, the Sun fiasco has had me using LibreOffice most of the
>> time these days...
>>
>> What I would like is an option to pay by the feature on a small project
>> basis. I would buy one or more shares in features that I wanted, where the
>> project budget would include such things as testing and programmer time,
>> etc. The new features would be selected as enough people agreed to pay for
>> them. The structure I would suggest would actually leave you holding the
>> money as a kind of charity stock brokerage. Some of the projects might
>> involve support in various forms, of course.
>>
>> However I've been advocating this sort of thing for some years. The closest
>> thing I've seen is Kickstarter, but they seem to be completely lacking in
>> project management. My suggestion would be more like "reverse auction
>> charity shares". Unless someone does something like that, I'm not
>> likely to
>> donate again... I'm convinced the economic model is as important as the
>> software.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Freedom. It's about meaningful and unconstrained choice, not beer.
>>
Re: Would like to help, but...
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Please do not feed the troll. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Shannon Jacobs <sh...@alumni.rice.edu>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:51 AM
> Subject: Would like to help, but...
>
> Feels like I should start by saying that I'm actually one of those weirdos
> who used to pay for shareware and such. I admit that I mostly used the
> freely available software freely and without paying for it, but there were
> also a number of times that I paid for the premium versions, and even a
> couple of times when I paid the ransom after the free trial period had
> expired. Unfortunately, I never felt that I got more by donating and in
> most cases the programs in question soon disappeared anyway. I mostly
> concluded that competent programmers aren't going to stay with that
> economic model. My best guess is that some of them were hoping to strike it
> rich, but they didn't, so they gave up. However, why would I want them to
> help them strike it rich, even if their program was great? I don't Las
> Vegas economic models, either.
>
> Meanwhile, I hate the anti-freedom anti-choice policies of Microsoft,
> Apple, Oracle, and increasingly the google, too. However, their economic
> models work.
>
> I would prefer to support you with some money, but I still doubt you'll
> survive. Actually, the Sun fiasco has had me using LibreOffice most of the
> time these days...
>
> What I would like is an option to pay by the feature on a small project
> basis. I would buy one or more shares in features that I wanted, where the
> project budget would include such things as testing and programmer time,
> etc. The new features would be selected as enough people agreed to pay for
> them. The structure I would suggest would actually leave you holding the
> money as a kind of charity stock brokerage. Some of the projects might
> involve support in various forms, of course.
>
> However I've been advocating this sort of thing for some years. The closest
> thing I've seen is Kickstarter, but they seem to be completely lacking in
> project management. My suggestion would be more like "reverse auction
> charity shares". Unless someone does something like that, I'm not
> likely to
> donate again... I'm convinced the economic model is as important as the
> software.
>
>
> --
> Freedom. It's about meaningful and unconstrained choice, not beer.
>
Re: Would like to help, but...
Posted by Fernando Cassia <fc...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Shannon Jacobs <sh...@alumni.rice.edu>wrote:
> Meanwhile, I hate the anti-freedom anti-choice policies of Microsoft,
> Apple, Oracle, and increasingly the google, too. However, their economic
> models work.
>
Hold your horses
Lots of Linux code developed at
http://oss.oracle.com/
(including the Btrfs developed at ORCL and merged in the Linux kernel last
February that makes Linux competitive with Microsoft's ReFS)
Virtualbox
License: GPLv2
https://www.virtualbox.org/
Netbeans
License: CDDL / GPL
http://netbeans.org/
Glassfish
License: CDDL / GPL
http://glassfish.java.net/
OpenJDK
License: GPL2+CE
http://openjdk.java.net/
MySQL Community Edition: GPL
http://www.mysql.com/products/community/
JavaDB: Apache 2.0 License
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javadb/overview/index.html
BerkeleyDB: 2-clause BSD license <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license>
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/products/berkeleydb/overview/index-093405.html
So while I wouldn't touch the firm's propietary products, that they are
putting lots of development dollars into plenty of open source projects is
hardly what I'd call "anti-Freedom" or "anti-choice".
FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
act
- George Orwell
Re: Would like to help, but...
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 13:51 +0900, Shannon Jacobs wrote:
> Feels like I should start by saying that I'm actually one of those weirdos
> who used to pay for shareware and such. I admit that I mostly used the
> freely available software freely and without paying for it, but there were
> also a number of times that I paid for the premium versions, and even a
> couple of times when I paid the ransom after the free trial period had
> expired. Unfortunately, I never felt that I got more by donating and in
> most cases the programs in question soon disappeared anyway. I mostly
> concluded that competent programmers aren't going to stay with that
> economic model. My best guess is that some of them were hoping to strike it
> rich, but they didn't, so they gave up. However, why would I want them to
> help them strike it rich, even if their program was great? I don't Las
> Vegas economic models, either.
>
> Meanwhile, I hate the anti-freedom anti-choice policies of Microsoft,
> Apple, Oracle, and increasingly the google, too. However, their economic
> models work.
>
> I would prefer to support you with some money, but I still doubt you'll
> survive. Actually, the Sun fiasco has had me using LibreOffice most of the
> time these days...
>
> What I would like is an option to pay by the feature on a small project
> basis. I would buy one or more shares in features that I wanted, where the
> project budget would include such things as testing and programmer time,
> etc. The new features would be selected as enough people agreed to pay for
> them. The structure I would suggest would actually leave you holding the
> money as a kind of charity stock brokerage. Some of the projects might
> involve support in various forms, of course.
>
> However I've been advocating this sort of thing for some years. The closest
> thing I've seen is Kickstarter, but they seem to be completely lacking in
> project management. My suggestion would be more like "reverse auction
> charity shares". Unless someone does something like that, I'm not likely to
> donate again... I'm convinced the economic model is as important as the
> software.
>
>
Hello Shannon,
Well, what you propose is interesting, but IMO right now what this
project needs is more in-kind help then monetary.
Often people believe that only coders can contribute, but this is not
true, for any open source project and particularly for end user focused
open source projects.
One area of concern to this project, IMO, is user and developer
documentation.
You aren't by any chance a Technical Writer/Editor are you?
//drew