Re: [tlug] kickstarter for open source...

[Ulrike Schmidt <ulrike@example.com>]

Am 12.06.13 11:16, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
> Ulrike Schmidt writes:
>
>   >  So we agree we can drop the "spare change for UNICEF" comparison in
>   >  favor of "retailing innovation"?
>
> No.  Look at the subject line.  It's not about the success or
> otherwise of Kickstarter.  It's about open source.
I read "kickstarter for open source". You are saying Kickstarter will be 
successful but not for open source? Because people only invest in open 
source as much as they would donate to UNICEF? Or do you want to say 
that not all open source projects will get funding? Yes, probably not.

> Well, I'm an economics professor and you're not, so I personally am
> going to trust my intuition, not yours. :-)
Since you are an economics professor I trusted you could give me rational reasons, not merely your intuiton.


> Curt's intuition is
> tolerably close to mine, and that counts with me, too.
Well, I don't care about your intuitions, but about your arguments.

> As for other reasons, there's the economics of spam.  See below.
>
>   >  So when I put my money into an open source project I am not only helping
>   >  myself to a good piece of software, but I am also doing something for
>   >  the community. Even better! The project will progress regardless of my
>   >  motivation.
>
> I've already declared myself uninterested in your motivation.
As I psychologist I would say people's motivation is relevant, if it 
comes to whether they are going to support a project or not.

>   I'm
> interested in your contraints.  If you can't get the product without
> paying, it's a purchase.  If you pay more than you have to (including
> anything if "have to" is zero), that portion is a donation.
>
> In open source, you don't have to pay (modulo "ransom" schemes[1] and the
> like).  There are about 100,000 projects on Sourceforge, there must be
> similar numbers on github and bitbucket, and a couple hundred on
> Savannah.  How many of those do you contribute to?
The ones I am really intersted in, that solve a problem for me. So my 
motivation and my daily needs come in again, sorry. I am currently not 
supporting all possible projects with code, I won't do so in the future.

I do have a constraint in the means with which I solve the problems of 
my daily life. If an open source project helps solving them now I will 
use it for free. If does not solve some of them yet but could possibly 
soon if I give someone money (call it whatever pleases you and is 
scientifically correct) and the amount is within my constraints the 
chances are high that I will do so.

Since you don't care about my personal motivation I claim that a lot of 
people are thinking in the same lines. I have to admit this is based on 
my intuition as a psychologist (I am not a professor) and you are free 
to doubt it. If you insist, I will give you arguments ;-)

The other day I was asked by an instution that helps artists with video 
processing whether there aren't any open source video processing 
software projects that they could use and fund the development of 
special features. They did not know how to find them. They have list of 
projects now and I will see how this develops.

> If a few FLOSS
> projects get big publicity for getting $1000 or more from Kickstarter,
> how many of them do you think will register?
>
> So the question is how many people, how much money, and how many
> projects.
Is the glass half empty or half full? Will people go shopping on 
crowdfunding platforms like they are on amazon and ebay now? Will 
spamming for your own crowdfunding project be forbidden? Does it matter 
if your project is open source or not? Possibly it helps?

Anyway, I am getting confused about this discussion and what you really 
want to tell us and what you think it is really about. So maybe I should 
simply step out of it for the moment.