Mailing List Archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Am 12.06.13 04:34, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
Ulrike Schmidt writes:

  >  I also think the comparison with spare change is not quite
  >  correct. It is not donating, it is more like buying a T-Shirt, a
  >  video, some piece of software, a 3D scanner, fame, whatever.

Where the project returns a good directly to the customer and payment
occurs in exchange for the good[1], what you're talking about is a
retailing innovation.  I'm quite happy to call it an important
innovation, but ten years from now it will be as taken for granted as
Amazon and eBay are now.
So we agree we can drop the "spare change for UNICEF" comparison in favor of "retailing innovation"?
What I am claiming[2] is that it isn't a
solution to the problem of funding open source as we know and love it.
[2]  Based on my professor's intuition, which is worth listening to
but should not be taken as indicating its "truth". ;-)

Why not? Are there any reasons besides intuition? Because my intuition is that crowdfunding is perfect for open source projects although there might be some improvements specific for these kinds of project.
If you feel like you're "buying" a unit of a good at little monetary
risk, and that's the only way to receive it in a timely fashion,
that's not "crowdfunding", that's an "Internet flea market".
I was describing crowdfunding. In a fleamarket I buy things that exist already. With crowdfunding I put money into a project that produces things that do not exist completely but hopefully will if there are enough people to fund it.
This not
the same as published open source software, which need not be paid for
at all.
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.

Ulrike Schmidt writes:

  >  I am funding all kind of projects in my daily live: the bakery next door
  >  for example.

Please, "purchase" != "fund".  You are *purchasing*, the bakery
*receives revenue*.  What is done with that revenue is up to the
bakery.  The owner can close its doors tonight and retire.  The
decision to *fund* future production is the owner's, not yours.
I know that globally it means something else but I was implictly redefining "funding" locally in my mail hoping to broaden your perspective regarding the limited amount of "spare money" and market saturation.
What you do with your money, and how you think about it, is up to you.
That's true both as a matter of ethics and in economic analysis.
Sure, no problem there, see above. The projects will not care about my motivation as long as I pay.
the difference between revenue received and funding received is
crucial to a business, and crucial to understanding the economics of
Kickstarter and whether it's likely to be an important contribution to
funding open source software.
Yes, now could you explain that part a little bit more? Specifically why crowdfunding should not be helpful in funding open source projects?

Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links