Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:10:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:10:07 -0400 Received: from dns1.arrancar.com ([209.92.187.33]:44676 "EHLO core.arrancar.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:10:01 -0400 Subject: Funding GPL projects or funding the GPL? From: Federico Ferreres To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Date: 26 Jul 2002 13:09:32 -0300 Message-Id: <1027699778.744.10.camel@fede> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3182 Lines: 71 In a recent discussion about developers running out of money (arch, perl) and what can we do for helping them I can up with an idea. I'd like to share it with anyone in the list even though it'll probably be disregarded or flamed. The Kernel may well be nicely funded, because of companies supported. But that's not always the case, and the schema just fails in a lot of key areas of OSS. Why post it here then? Because for it to work it must be supported by at least some of the grand developements of OSS. Here's the actual idea, which actually is a slashdot repost Re:Isn't dual-licensing with the GPL perfect for t (Score:2) by fferreres on Friday July 26, @11:01AM (#3958396) (User #525414 Info | http://www.arrancar.com/) Yes, but that underfunds the projects. You can see this clearly when Microsoft can sell lots of buggy software and of the best OSS developers can't earn a decent salary. I'd love to see a new license, that could be called the fGPL. That would be the "Funded GPL". To be able to use fGPLd programs you'll HAVE to contribute some small amount of money to the fGPL foundation. You'll not be required to pay for any individual fGPL software, just a plain simple yearly $10 or $20 charge. And you will be able to distribute exactly where that money goes, among all the different projects. If you can't pay $20 a year it will be no problem, just a bit penalty: all fGPL software would be free as in beer once the year passes (old releases). The money paid to the developers would only cover salaries and some expenses that are needing to continue developement. So if any proyect gets over-funded, you'll be noticed that you must reasign some of your credits. It'd always be free as in freedom. We only need to bring some beer for that to happen. It'll also kill the anti OSS argument that the system is for comunists or anti-american. I know that is FUD, but do your representatives know that? It will also kill most of the other FUD targeted at OSS and will also bust developement to unknown levels. What do we need for this to happen? To have the Linux Kernel, the Red Hat distro, mplayer, X and gcc (for example, could be others as well) adopting the fGPL for the next releases. After that, we'll see most every GPLd program adopting the fGPL. After that, you'll start to see how much sense it made to pay $20 a year. And even the ones that can't pay (if any) will be able to use the software (though 1 year old, but their hardware si severla years old for sure). This is my opinion. I'd gladly pay the $20, as long as EVERYONE ELSE pays their $20. That's why we don't see many donations now: because you have this felling everyone else is just waiting for a fool like you to contribute to project X in order to save it. ------------- end ------------- Thanks for everything and to everyone here! Federico fferreres (@) ojf com pd: Please CC if you need my reply as I am not on the list - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/