Funding Clojure 2010 Background ----------
It is important when using open source software that you consider who is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free software. Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software, lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but precluding me from funding it via dual licensing. Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case for Clojure. Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the case for Clojure. Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary support. It is important to note that often the support income does not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5]. That is not the case for Clojure. Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure. There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact, we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it. Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work. Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely compromising our profession. Foreground ---------- As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear that. Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on Clojure has been compensated. Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure, yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being forced to do so. Here's how I think that could work: Individual users If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system. I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself, and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating, a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a country with a different income structure, please contribute a commensurate amount. Businesses If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me directly via email to make arrangements. Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever worked with. Thanks, Rich [1] http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/10/importance-of-license-model-of-mysql-or.html [2] http://keionline.org/ec-mysql [3] http://blog.linkedin.com/2009/03/20/project-voldemort-scaling-simple-storage-at-linkedin/ [4] http://www.scala-lang.org/node/146 [5] https://www.redhat.com/products/ [6] http://www.ibm.com/linux/systems.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
