--- On Sat, 3/19/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] The economics of Open source To: "Bernardo Barros" bernardobarros2@gmail.com Cc: "pd-list" pd-list@iem.at Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 8:34 PM On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Bernardo Barros wrote:
Hello , Mathieu! Well, I did not refer to
implementation of new features, but the maintenance of that code that already works, fixing bugs.
Ok, so, basically, buggy software gets rewarded for requests to fix bugs. Bugless software is not rewarded : it does not pay. Therefore we are encouraged to put enough bugs in there so that we get money. Nevermind the high-reliability ideals.
(Of course, don't let my comments prevent you from contributing money. I'm just trying to say that some assumptions about funding may encourage the wrong things and cause strange compensations.)
The points you raise have a lot to do with a clear and
sustainable long-term funding model for Pd, and probably nothing to do
with any specific individual's actual donation in and of itself.
Any reasonable way Bernardo decides to fund Pd will no doubt be a good
thing. :)
Actually now that I write that, I'd say that even implementing a _bad_ funding model regarding Pd isn't such a big deal at this point. If the only way for the general public to fund Pd was to donate to a "bug squashing fund", it's quite unlikely that enough money would be generated to create an incentive for corruption. At most there would be a big enough pot to squash a bunch of existing bugs, after which whoever is in charge of the effort could say, "Hey, we squashed a lot of bugs, now let's encourage people to donate to other things, too."
-Jonathan
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list