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

[Ulrike Schmidt <ulrike@example.com>]

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.
> But
> 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?