Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:03:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:03:52 -0400 Received: from dns1.arrancar.com ([209.92.187.33]:57503 "EHLO core.arrancar.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:03:51 -0400 Subject: Re: Funding GPL projects or funding the GPL? From: Federico Ferreres To: Alexander Viro Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Date: 26 Jul 2002 21:03:21 -0300 Message-Id: <1027728207.1539.50.camel@fede> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3000 Lines: 64 On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 18:23, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > On 26 Jul 2002, Federico Ferreres wrote: > What you and the rest of armchair generals do not get is that "adding > features" is _not_ the hard part of work. Doing that in a way that > wouldn't be a permanent source of bugs afterwards and cleaning up the > existing sources of bugs _IS_. So is doing infrastructure work. So > is auditing code. So is removing crap code. Al, your point is 100% valid. That's why is said "Projects could open "feature requests" if they like." I think the important thing is that developers are the ones that should run the show. The idea here is to offer a monetary compensation for the hard work of developers directly from the users in such a way that the costs will be spread among millions of people. How to pump money into projects and at the same time allow developers to do The Right Thing, is something that can be discussed and shaped according to each developer needs. The kernel will not want to accept code that came from a feature requests (maintainability or security or for whatever the reason). And that's good! Only good code should make it in. An idea for funding the core developements would be to preassign a fixed 15% of all the funds at this developements (gcc, glibc, kernel, OpenSSH, etc.) The rest will go to userland as the members see fit, as most (home) users think everything is about apps. We might even be able to fund games and (uneeded but wanted) things like that, boosting Linux adoption. We may be even able to buy some patents (like the SGI ones that MS bought, before somebody elses limits us). Or we may be able to open the code to certain apps to turn them into fGPL, if need be. So in brief, the power will remain at the developers, because they are the ones that know what they are doing. If some folks want an insecure piece of code to make it into (for example) the kernel, they'll be so out of luck as they are today. The idea may be crap in many people minds. It's not perfect, it's not without dangers. Maybe OSS doesn't have a need for those funds. But they money is there. It just needs a way to flow from users to developers. Right now it's flowing from the users to Microsoft. That's fine, but we could do better, faster and bring freedom to users. All we'll need is discussion of pro/cons and whoever likes the pros more can fGPL. After 4 or 5 core apps fGPL, everyone will want to fGPL and get some money to pay the expenses and hard work they are doing. The choice is all yours ... you own this market, you control it and you deserve to manage things as you see fit. My $20 will be waiting for a way to contribute in an inteligent manner which also forces everyone else to do the same. Federico - 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/