It is important when using open source software that you consider who
is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free
software.
Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with
undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to
pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that
license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued
for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software,
lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure
doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but
precluding me from funding it via dual licensing.
Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary
product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to
decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business
function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open
sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting
them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that
the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are
paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case
for Clojure.
Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by
the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the
case for Clojure.
Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary
support. It is important to note that often the support income does
not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income
models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5].
That is not the case for Clojure.
Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their
employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must
be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them
sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their
proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure.
There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers
see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money
produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are
dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called
"proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because
they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open
source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact,
we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no
source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates
value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it.
Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they
don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source
software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like
to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who
create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to
see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open
source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to
dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of
open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the
proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct
connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those
that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source
software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of
someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely
compromising our profession.
Foreground
----------
As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started
as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far
more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or
corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of
another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing
Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear
that.
Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more
have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough
money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on
Clojure has been compensated.
Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure,
yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly
deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the
arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund
its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being
forced to do so.
Here's how I think that could work:
Individual users
If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to
contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system.
I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough
that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself,
and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating,
a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a
country with a different income structure, please contribute a
commensurate amount.
Businesses
If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and
applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this
stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be
enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several
of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong
core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources
to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my
Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor
Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur
via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice
you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on
Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me
directly via email to make arrangements.
Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on
Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and
you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever
worked with.
> It is important when using open source software that you consider who
> is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free
> software.
> Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with
> undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to
> pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that
> license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued
> for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software,
> lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure
> doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but
> precluding me from funding it via dual licensing.
> Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary
> product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to
> decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business
> function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open
> sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting
> them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that
> the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are
> paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case
> for Clojure.
> Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by
> the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the
> case for Clojure.
> Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary
> support. It is important to note that often the support income does
> not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income
> models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5].
> That is not the case for Clojure.
> Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their
> employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must
> be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them
> sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their
> proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure.
> There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers
> see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money
> produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are
> dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called
> "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because
> they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open
> source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact,
> we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no
> source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates
> value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it.
> Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they
> don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source
> software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like
> to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who
> create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to
> see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open
> source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to
> dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work.
> Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of
> open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the
> proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct
> connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those
> that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source
> software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of
> someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely
> compromising our profession.
> Foreground
> ----------
> As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started
> as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far
> more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or
> corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of
> another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing
> Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear
> that.
> Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more
> have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough
> money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on
> Clojure has been compensated.
> Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure,
> yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly
> deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the
> arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund
> its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being
> forced to do so.
> Here's how I think that could work:
> Individual users
> If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to
> contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system.
> I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough
> that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself,
> and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating,
> a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a
> country with a different income structure, please contribute a
> commensurate amount.
> Businesses
> If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and
> applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this
> stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be
> enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several
> of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong
> core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources
> to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my
> Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor
> Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur
> via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice
> you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on
> Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me
> directly via email to make arrangements.
> Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on
> Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and
> you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever
> worked with.
About the donations. Is there any way we can see how you are doing
donation-wise, compared to the target for personal donations you would
like to reach? I think people find it easier to donate, if they have
insight in how much you've received this month / this calendar year
compared to your target.
It might be interesting to put the target per month / per year you
want to reach up there with the donation counter immediately, even if
currently the community is still too small to reach that target
through donations. While we might not be able to make it yet, it sets
a clear goal for everyone. I am not sure if being so open about your
financing is something that feels comfortable to you, personally, but
I've always liked the blogposts about bands putting albums online with
a donation button, or games being sold on donations.
I barely have time to do anything in Clojure these days, but the work
you've done, the talks you've given, and so on are worth "the price of
admission". I really do hope enough chip in so you can focus on your
work with the language until such time as you can make it profitable
in other ways, if that's possible.
Snowtide will be sponsoring Clojure. But, we're small, bootstrapped
(i.e. not venture-funded), and just one of what I'll bet are a fair
number of commercial users of Clojure.
If you're reading this, and you use, enjoy, and perhaps profit from
Rich's hard work, please contribute or sponsor Clojure.
- Chas
On Dec 14, 9:33 am, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is important when using open source software that you consider who
> is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free
> software.
> Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with
> undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to
> pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that
> license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued
> for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software,
> lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure
> doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but
> precluding me from funding it via dual licensing.
> Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary
> product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to
> decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business
> function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open
> sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting
> them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that
> the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are
> paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case
> for Clojure.
> Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by
> the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the
> case for Clojure.
> Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary
> support. It is important to note that often the support income does
> not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income
> models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5].
> That is not the case for Clojure.
> Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their
> employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must
> be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them
> sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their
> proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure.
> There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers
> see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money
> produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are
> dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called
> "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because
> they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open
> source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact,
> we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no
> source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates
> value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it.
> Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they
> don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source
> software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like
> to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who
> create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to
> see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open
> source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to
> dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work.
> Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of
> open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the
> proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct
> connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those
> that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source
> software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of
> someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely
> compromising our profession.
> Foreground
> ----------
> As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started
> as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far
> more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or
> corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of
> another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing
> Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear
> that.
> Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more
> have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough
> money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on
> Clojure has been compensated.
> Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure,
> yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly
> deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the
> arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund
> its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being
> forced to do so.
> Here's how I think that could work:
> Individual users
> If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to
> contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system.
> I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough
> that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself,
> and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating,
> a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a
> country with a different income structure, please contribute a
> commensurate amount.
> Businesses
> If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and
> applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this
> stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be
> enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several
> of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong
> core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources
> to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my
> Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor
> Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur
> via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice
> you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on
> Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me
> directly via email to make arrangements.
> Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on
> Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and
> you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever
> worked with.
I'm happy to support you in this way Rich, even though I only use
Clojure for hobby projects and do not make any money on it either. I
sent my donation.
Good luck.
Zef
On Dec 14, 4:16 pm, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
despite that I'm a hobbyist and have never been paid to program, the
experience/knowledge I've acquired thus far from the presentation
videos makes contributing an easy decision. while i'm hopeful that
the businesses using clojure will contribute, i think it's even more
important for individuals to participate, so that clojure remains well-
rounded going forward. even if you only know enough to think you
might like clojure, now is really the most important time to be
supportive on the individual level.
cheers,
grantmichaels
On Dec 14, 9:33 am, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is important when using open source software that you consider who
> is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free
> software.
> Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with
> undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to
> pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that
> license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued
> for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software,
> lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure
> doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but
> precluding me from funding it via dual licensing.
> Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary
> product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to
> decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business
> function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open
> sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting
> them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that
> the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are
> paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case
> for Clojure.
> Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by
> the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the
> case for Clojure.
> Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary
> support. It is important to note that often the support income does
> not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income
> models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5].
> That is not the case for Clojure.
> Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their
> employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must
> be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them
> sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their
> proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure.
> There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers
> see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money
> produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are
> dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called
> "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because
> they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open
> source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact,
> we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no
> source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates
> value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it.
> Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they
> don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source
> software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like
> to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who
> create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to
> see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open
> source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to
> dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work.
> Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of
> open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the
> proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct
> connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those
> that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source
> software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of
> someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely
> compromising our profession.
> Foreground
> ----------
> As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started
> as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far
> more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or
> corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of
> another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing
> Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear
> that.
> Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more
> have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough
> money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on
> Clojure has been compensated.
> Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure,
> yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly
> deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the
> arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund
> its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being
> forced to do so.
> Here's how I think that could work:
> Individual users
> If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to
> contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system.
> I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough
> that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself,
> and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating,
> a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a
> country with a different income structure, please contribute a
> commensurate amount.
> Businesses
> If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and
> applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this
> stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be
> enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several
> of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong
> core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources
> to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my
> Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor
> Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur
> via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice
> you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on
> Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me
> directly via email to make arrangements.
> Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on
> Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and
> you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever
> worked with.
> It is important when using open source software that you consider who
> is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free
> software.
> Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with
> undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to
> pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that
> license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued
> for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software,
> lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure
> doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but
> precluding me from funding it via dual licensing.
> Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary
> product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to
> decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business
> function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open
> sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting
> them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that
> the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are
> paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case
> for Clojure.
> Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by
> the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the
> case for Clojure.
> Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary
> support. It is important to note that often the support income does
> not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income
> models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5].
> That is not the case for Clojure.
> Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their
> employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must
> be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them
> sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their
> proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure.
> There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers
> see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money
> produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are
> dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called
> "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because
> they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open
> source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact,
> we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no
> source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates
> value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it.
> Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they
> don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source
> software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like
> to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who
> create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to
> see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open
> source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to
> dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work.
> Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of
> open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the
> proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct
> connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those
> that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source
> software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of
> someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely
> compromising our profession.
> Foreground
> ----------
> As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started
> as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far
> more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or
> corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of
> another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing
> Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear
> that.
> Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more
> have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough
> money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on
> Clojure has been compensated.
> Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure,
> yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly
> deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the
> arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund
> its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being
> forced to do so.
> Here's how I think that could work:
> Individual users
> If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to
> contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system.
> I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough
> that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself,
> and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating,
> a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a
> country with a different income structure, please contribute a
> commensurate amount.
> Businesses
> If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and
> applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this
> stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be
> enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several
> of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong
> core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources
> to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my
> Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor
> Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur
> via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice
> you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on
> Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me
> directly via email to make arrangements.
> Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on
> Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and
> you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever
> worked with.
This is a great post. However, I don't know if Clojure is the
software that companies/people will invest in that will garnish the
kind of support you need. For example, it seems like a lot of
software like MySQL, Apache Group, Python were in use for years, maybe
even decades before becoming a self sustaining entity.
Have you ever considered working with a larger company like Oracle/
Sun, IBM or Google in some kind of research capacity and working on
Clojure full time there? For example, I believe the JRuby developers
worked for Sun at one point while they developed JRuby.
I have not done something like this before but your Clojure changed my life
, so I owe you something. However, coming from a far away continent(with low
income per head) I may not be able to match 100/developer/year price. I hope
you won't mind my widow's might when it comes.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:19 PM, BerlinBrown <berlin.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:33 am, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Funding Clojure 2010
> > Background
> > ----------
> > It is important when using open source software that you consider who
> > is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free
> > software.
> > Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with
> > undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to
> > pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that
> > license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued
> > for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software,
> > lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure
> > doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but
> > precluding me from funding it via dual licensing.
> > Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary
> > product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to
> > decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business
> > function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open
> > sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting
> > them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that
> > the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are
> > paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case
> > for Clojure.
> > Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by
> > the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the
> > case for Clojure.
> > Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary
> > support. It is important to note that often the support income does
> > not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income
> > models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5].
> > That is not the case for Clojure.
> > Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their
> > employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must
> > be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them
> > sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their
> > proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure.
> > There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers
> > see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money
> > produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are
> > dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called
> > "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because
> > they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open
> > source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact,
> > we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no
> > source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates
> > value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it.
> > Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they
> > don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source
> > software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like
> > to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who
> > create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to
> > see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open
> > source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to
> > dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work.
> > Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of
> > open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the
> > proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct
> > connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those
> > that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source
> > software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of
> > someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely
> > compromising our profession.
> > Foreground
> > ----------
> > As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started
> > as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far
> > more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or
> > corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of
> > another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing
> > Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear
> > that.
> > Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more
> > have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough
> > money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on
> > Clojure has been compensated.
> > Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure,
> > yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly
> > deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the
> > arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund
> > its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being
> > forced to do so.
> > Here's how I think that could work:
> > Individual users
> > If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to
> > contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system.
> > I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough
> > that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself,
> > and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating,
> > a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a
> > country with a different income structure, please contribute a
> > commensurate amount.
> > Businesses
> > If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and
> > applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this
> > stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be
> > enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several
> > of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong
> > core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources
> > to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my
> > Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor
> > Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur
> > via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice
> > you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on
> > Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me
> > directly via email to make arrangements.
> > Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on
> > Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and
> > you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever
> > worked with.
> This is a great post. However, I don't know if Clojure is the
> software that companies/people will invest in that will garnish the
> kind of support you need. For example, it seems like a lot of
> software like MySQL, Apache Group, Python were in use for years, maybe
> even decades before becoming a self sustaining entity.
> Have you ever considered working with a larger company like Oracle/
> Sun, IBM or Google in some kind of research capacity and working on
> Clojure full time there? For example, I believe the JRuby developers
> worked for Sun at one point while they developed JRuby.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com >
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
For years I have complained about the parts of java I don't like, and
lamented the stagnation of lisp. I never imagined anyone could
simultaneously attack both issues so beautifully and so successfully.
Bravo.
I have yet to make a dime using Clojure, but hope to some day. So as a
Christmas present for myself, I sent in my donation.
That's a great idea, hope it gains some traction. I'm recently
unemployed and trying to bootstrap my own startup, so I'll skip this
year. When my financial condition will be more solid though, I'll
certainly donate something. In the meantime, as I intend to build my
projects in Clojure, I'll contribute code back as much as I can.
- budu
On Dec 14, 9:33 am, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is important when using open source software that you consider who
> is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free
> software.
> Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with
> undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to
> pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that
> license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued
> for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software,
> lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure
> doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but
> precluding me from funding it via dual licensing.
> Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary
> product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to
> decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business
> function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open
> sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting
> them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that
> the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are
> paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case
> for Clojure.
> Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by
> the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the
> case for Clojure.
> Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary
> support. It is important to note that often the support income does
> not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income
> models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5].
> That is not the case for Clojure.
> Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their
> employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must
> be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them
> sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their
> proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure.
> There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers
> see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money
> produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are
> dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called
> "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because
> they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open
> source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact,
> we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no
> source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates
> value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it.
> Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they
> don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source
> software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like
> to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who
> create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to
> see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open
> source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to
> dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work.
> Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of
> open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the
> proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct
> connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those
> that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source
> software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of
> someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely
> compromising our profession.
> Foreground
> ----------
> As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started
> as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far
> more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or
> corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of
> another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing
> Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear
> that.
> Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more
> have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough
> money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on
> Clojure has been compensated.
> Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure,
> yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly
> deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the
> arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund
> its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being
> forced to do so.
> Here's how I think that could work:
> Individual users
> If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to
> contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system.
> I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough
> that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself,
> and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating,
> a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a
> country with a different income structure, please contribute a
> commensurate amount.
> Businesses
> If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and
> applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this
> stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be
> enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several
> of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong
> core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources
> to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my
> Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor
> Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur
> via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice
> you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on
> Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me
> directly via email to make arrangements.
> Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on
> Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and
> you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever
> worked with.
I very much hope your voluntary donation approach works. I
suspect the best chance of making it work is if you regularly
remind-people-of/market/promote the idea of donating. That is,
I believe there is a lot of goodwill out there, and a lot of people
will have good intentions, but it is easy for these good intentions
to not translate into actual donations. Of course, there needs to
be a healthy balance between promoting the idea enough and
doing it so much that people get annoyed. But I think it should
be possible to get the balance right.
Hopefully the donation approach is a success, but if not, may I
suggest a Plan B. And that is that at any point in time you have
two versions of Clojure going:
* a proprietary version of "the latest and greatest"; and
* an open source version which is "1 year old" (or something
like that).
Each proprietary release would include in the licence "from date
XX/XX/XXXX and onwards, this release may be used under the
open source licencing terms ...". This would give proprietary users
the guarantee that at some point the version of clojure they are
using would become open source.
Proprietary users would be paying for the ability to use the latest
and greatest. If the licence fee were reasonable, then this, together
with the goodwill factor, I hope would be enough to get people to
finance the project.
This approach seems to me to be a good compromise between
open source and proprietary funding. It provides all the benefits of
open source over time, yet provides a tangible reason for paying
licence fees beyond just goodwill. It also means that employees
who are part of businesses that can't understand voluntary donations,
can more easily justify the expenditure.
Don't get me wrong, I think the voluntary donation model is the best
one - if it works - and so is worth a shot. But if it doesn't work
out,
I offer this alternative model as one that might be worth considering.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Mark P <pierh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This approach seems to me to be a good compromise between
> open source and proprietary funding. It provides all the benefits of
> open source over time, yet provides a tangible reason for paying
> licence fees beyond just goodwill. It also means that employees
> who are part of businesses that can't understand voluntary donations,
> can more easily justify the expenditure.
This strikes me as a potentially disastrous idea; look at how much
mindshare going the proprietary route has cost Rebol, for instance.
I second the idea that there should be some kind of status report so
that people can see what you need and how close we are to meeting the
goal.
Just having a Donate button on the site was not enough to get me to
contribute. But spelling it out like you have here pushed me over the
edge. I think if people could see what the need was then they would
be willing to give more. Otherwise they may continue to think that
someone else will do it and so they don't need to.
It may also be good to have a web site set up where people/businesses
could actually make a monetary commitment per year and then those who
have donated could see what the commitment level is and then know if
perhaps they need to up their own commitment or try harder to get more
people involved or get creative and come up with other ideas for how
to raise money. Obviously not a job for you personally but for someone
else in the community to take up if you think it is a good idea. I may
be willing...
Brenton
On Dec 14, 6:33 am, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is important when using open source software that you consider who
> is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free
> software.
> Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with
> undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to
> pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that
> license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued
> for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software,
> lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure
> doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but
> precluding me from funding it via dual licensing.
> Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary
> product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to
> decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business
> function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open
> sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting
> them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that
> the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are
> paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case
> for Clojure.
> Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by
> the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the
> case for Clojure.
> Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary
> support. It is important to note that often the support income does
> not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income
> models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5].
> That is not the case for Clojure.
> Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their
> employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must
> be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them
> sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their
> proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure.
> There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers
> see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money
> produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are
> dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called
> "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because
> they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open
> source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact,
> we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no
> source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates
> value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it.
> Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they
> don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source
> software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like
> to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who
> create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to
> see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open
> source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to
> dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work.
> Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of
> open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the
> proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct
> connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those
> that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source
> software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of
> someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely
> compromising our profession.
> Foreground
> ----------
> As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started
> as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far
> more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or
> corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of
> another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing
> Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear
> that.
> Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more
> have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough
> money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on
> Clojure has been compensated.
> Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure,
> yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly
> deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the
> arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund
> its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being
> forced to do so.
> Here's how I think that could work:
> Individual users
> If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to
> contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system.
> I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough
> that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself,
> and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating,
> a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a
> country with a different income structure, please contribute a
> commensurate amount.
> Businesses
> If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and
> applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this
> stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be
> enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several
> of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong
> core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources
> to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my
> Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor
> Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur
> via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice
> you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on
> Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me
> directly via email to make arrangements.
> Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on
> Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and
> you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever
> worked with.
I sent my contribution. Thanks for your work on Clojure. It's
brought me many weekends of joyful hacking. Please continue to let
the community know what's necessary to sustain Clojure's development.
On Dec 14, 6:33 am, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is important when using open source software that you consider who
> is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free
> software.
> Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with
> undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to
> pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that
> license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued
> for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software,
> lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure
> doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but
> precluding me from funding it via dual licensing.
> Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary
> product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to
> decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business
> function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open
> sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting
> them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that
> the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are
> paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case
> for Clojure.
> Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by
> the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the
> case for Clojure.
> Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary
> support. It is important to note that often the support income does
> not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income
> models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5].
> That is not the case for Clojure.
> Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their
> employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must
> be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them
> sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their
> proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure.
> There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers
> see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money
> produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are
> dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called
> "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because
> they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open
> source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact,
> we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no
> source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates
> value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it.
> Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they
> don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source
> software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like
> to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who
> create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to
> see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open
> source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to
> dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work.
> Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of
> open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the
> proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct
> connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those
> that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source
> software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of
> someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely
> compromising our profession.
> Foreground
> ----------
> As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started
> as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far
> more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or
> corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of
> another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing
> Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear
> that.
> Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more
> have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough
> money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on
> Clojure has been compensated.
> Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure,
> yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly
> deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the
> arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund
> its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being
> forced to do so.
> Here's how I think that could work:
> Individual users
> If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to
> contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system.
> I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough
> that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself,
> and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating,
> a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a
> country with a different income structure, please contribute a
> commensurate amount.
> Businesses
> If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and
> applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this
> stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be
> enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several
> of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong
> core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources
> to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my
> Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor
> Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur
> via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice
> you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on
> Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me
> directly via email to make arrangements.
> Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on
> Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and
> you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever
> worked with.
> This strikes me as a potentially disastrous idea; look at how much
> mindshare going the proprietary route has cost Rebol, for instance.
I don't know anything about Rebol except for some quick
googling that I've just done on them. But the impression
I get is that what they've done is substantially different
from the Plan B that I've proposed.
From what I can tell, there is no guarantee that the current
Rebol code base will ever become open source. The Plan B
proposal guarantees that after 1 year (or whatever time
period is chosen) the current code base will become open
source.
One of the big pluses of open source - in my view - is the
long term guarantees it provides for the code base. If Rich
ever dropped Clojure development, open source means that
everyone would still be freely allowed to use, maintain and
further develop the code base. Plan B still provides this. As
a worst case it merely delays this.
I am not saying Plan B is the ideal choice. The two main
issues with it, I think, are:
* it means administering two versions; and
* it means some restriction of its use.
So I prefer what Rick has proposed - if it can be made to
work. But if it doesn't, I can't think of a better choice than
Plan B, although the "work for Sun/Company-X" option that
BerlinBrown suggested might work if the right job offer
came along.
If Plan B were implemented in a reasonable way, with
licence fees not unreasonable and with open source
guarantees not too far away, then surely the goodwill
would remain - especially if it were essential for the survival
of the project. And if goodwill remains, and guarantees
remain, surely mind-share would remain???
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Mark P <pierh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This strikes me as a potentially disastrous idea; look at how much
>> mindshare going the proprietary route has cost Rebol, for instance.
> I don't know anything about Rebol except for some quick
> googling that I've just done on them. But the impression
> I get is that what they've done is substantially different
> from the Plan B that I've proposed.
I don't know much about Rebol either, but from everything I've seen it
seems like an excellent language, with one of the best runtimes of any
scripting language I've seen. If it were open source, I'd have been
very enthusiastic about it; as it is, I can't bring myself to devote
my time and energy to a closed language. And it's not just me - if
adoption were based on language capabilities and usefulness, Rebol
looks like it should have far greater mindshare than it does.
Promising to open the source after a window is definitely a better
plan, but still risky - you'll probably just have the community
cluster around the old version, which means the new version will
suffer a lack of testing, libraries, etc.
> If Plan B were implemented in a reasonable way, with
> licence fees not unreasonable and with open source
> guarantees not too far away, then surely the goodwill
> would remain - especially if it were essential for the survival
> of the project. And if goodwill remains, and guarantees
> remain, surely mind-share would remain???
I'm not sure how far goodwill would carry it through. Speaking purely
for myself, I love clojure, and will definitely contribute to the
current funding drive. But if Rich had gone with your plan B and given
me the impression that I'd be a second-class citizen unless I paid for
a commercial license, I'd probably have left without a backward
glance. And not because I'd begrudge Rich the money, or consider
clojure not worth paying for, but simply because that would change the
dynamic of the language and community in a way that would not make me
feel excited about contributing time and energy to it any more.
Haven't used Clojure much yet, but plan on using it more as soon as I
am capable. In fact, I am so sold on Clojure I stopped using a paid-
for copy of Lispworks a week after buying it when I discovered
Clojure. Since Clojure runs on the JVM and interoperates with Java, I
am now learning Java, something I would never have done otherwise.
I wasn't aware just how far the funding effort was from meeting the
continuing needs of Clojure development and support. Therefore, I am
donating $100 to the effort since I don't want Rich to stop working on
it. Rich, keep us informed of the financial needs so we can all act
responsibly.
