Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bionet!apple!oliveb!mipos3!omepd!merlyn
From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: reinventing the wheel (was Re: Software Tax: how and why?)
Message-ID: <4811@omepd.UUCP>
Date: 16 Aug 89 17:05:27 GMT
References: <3674@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> 
Sender: news@omepd.UUCP
Reply-To: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz)
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
Lines: 57

In article , nelson@sun (Russ Nelson) writes:
| One free-market solution is to insist upon payment *before* the creation
| of the software.  This requires that the programmer have a reputation for
| delivering the goods.  For example, if rms were to ask everyone for a
| $100 contribution so that he could sit down and work uninterrupted on
| the GNU Kernel, I believe that he would get many, many hundreds of dollars.
| Certainly *I* would break open the piggy bank.
| 
| He could, for example, estimate that it would take him six months to
| write a kernel.  He might reasonably expect to make $15,000 to $20,000
| in that time by doing his normal consulting.  Therefore, he would need
| 150 to 200 contributions.  Of course, there would be a deadline for
| the contributions to arrive.  If he didn't get that many by the
| deadline, he would send them back.  He could set up an escrow account
| to store the money during the time the contributions were arriving.
| 
| This ensures that people will either get the software they have paid
| for, or else they will get their money back.  And if the deadline and
| the amount of contributions still needed are well known, then people
| who want the software will know that they either have to dig deeper,
| or rough up their friends.  :-)
| 
| There could even be a deadline for completion of the software.  If the
| deadline is missed, then the money in escrow (or a portion thereof)
| would be returned.
| 
| One advantage is that it reduces the risk that the programmer takes.  He
| is guaranteed a given amount of money if he completes the software.  It
| also guarantees that he would not be able to get rich.

Or, even better, suppose we could have Big Daddy Warbucks (BDW)
provide the "escrow" services, and collect the contributions against
an amount provided "up-front" to RMS.  We'd all send in our
contributions to BDW, who had already given the full amount to RMS so
he could get started.  BDW could also handle the distribution of the
resulting software, and possibly take a small portion of the
"contributions" as a "handling and distribution charge".  Of course,
to solicit contributions, BDW would advertise and promote RMS's latest
creation-in-progress through freebie articles (a.k.a. reviews) and
advertising.

Congratulations... you've just reinvented the software publisher.
Isn't the free market amazing?

I hate software hoarding, but I also like to get paid for what I do
(funny thing, because I have bills to pay, ya know...).  I think
there's enough room in the free market for both methods: proprietary
software generated by for-hire wizards, and "free" software generated
by (possibly uncompensated) wizards.  Let the market decide.  Why make
either a "bad thing"?

Just an opinion (what group is this, anyway? :-)...
-- 
/== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ====\
| on contract to Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA                           |
| merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn	         |
\== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/