Maybe it would be reasonable to charge for support if it added something to that already available on the list. After all, the list is made up for the most part of volunteers who do not need to earn a living answering questions, so it seems a little strange to gate access to them for \anyone, no matter how corporate. But corporations may want to pay for more intensive support to solve a particular problem. That could be provided by Rich himself, or any number of other contributors who would receive some money for the privilege, as would Rich in part. The results could be posted to the list as well so all could benefit.
More speculatively, corporations (or individuals, for that matter) may wish to bid on features that would be specifically useful to them. This would provide a rigorous (though not necessarily ideal) prioritizing of features. Not only could they offer bounties for features within Clojure, they could offer bounties for contribs. An author of a contrib could be seen as writing a contrib as a sort of proposal, that once completed (for a fee) would be more useful. There is no reason that a number of people and corporations could not get together and offer to pay something for a completed feature. This is a risky approach, because it may encourage \more things to remain uncompleted until some payment is received; writing of incomplete features could become a form of shakedown. The hope would be that, once people realize a certain feature is probably not going to be paid for, they would go ahead and finish it anyway. But that introduces a delay. Hard-core open-source people are right to worry about the ill effects on motivations and priorities of introducing money into the system. That's why I suggested a packaging approach: money for packaging isn't going to distort the core functionality of Clojure in the way paying for support or features might. (The distortion of paying for support, is that there is an obvious incentive to make features that \need support.) On Dec 15, 5:20 pm, Mike Hogye <stacktra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe take your ease-of-use idea in a slightly different direction and > call it "support." Lots of business models rely on selling support. > > I have found the support available through the Clojure community > (specifically: this Google Group, and the IRC channel) to be superb. > Could commercial/corporate devs be required to pay for access to this > community? > > Maybe: > * Hobby-only devs still get free access to group and channel, just > like now. > * Corporate devs get free access to group and channel while > evaluating Clojure. > * Once a corporate dev is no longer "just evaluating," payment is > required (per-developer per-year). > > For me, that would justify spending my company's money. And if I were > a potential Clojure user, it would not drive me away. > > On Dec 15, 3:09 pm, nchubrich <nicholas.chubr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Maybe the _thing_ could be a more packaged version of Clojure; > > something for which setup is a little more seamless, etc. No extra > > features, just convenience. Maybe an IDE plugin with extra debugging/ > > instructional features, and more facilities for browsing libraries > > (java and clojure). It could be something you buy by default, but > > with an opt-out for people who want to build it themselves. > > > On Dec 15, 8:50 am, Mike Hogye <stacktra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > +1 for the idea of offering a _thing_ for sale. > > > > The company I work for isn't going to give a donation; that's just not > > > something it does. But if there were a _thing_ I could purchase on the > > > company's dime, well ... it's much more standard for a company to make > > > a purchase than a donation. Particularly if the thing offered is > > > useful. > > > > Of course, it would take _work_ to make something to sell, and I don't > > > really have any strong suggestions. Maybe the community can build > > > something dual-licensed, whose proceeds go to developing Clojure > > > itself? Boils down to devs donating effort instead of cash. > > > > On Dec 15, 4:00 am, olalonde <olalo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm not convinced donations alone is a sustainable funding method. Why > > > > don't you derive a commercial product ? You could build an IDE for > > > > Clojure and sell it. You could write a book (although that is unlikely > > > > to really pay). You could build a "stackoverflow"-type community, > > > > organize events/conferences, etc. You might want to talk to some VC > > > > firm and see if they'd be interested in funding you. They could help > > > > you out figure a revenue model. > > > > > Best of luck! > > > > > On Dec 14, 9:33 am, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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
