Hey Nishandh,
See my comments inline.
On 05/18/2010 10:09 PM, nishandh M wrote:
Hi everybody, would you mind making a choice / comment ?
I am not standing on any side in this thread, just would like some
opinions please. hope there wont be flaming, I understand the content
is little irritating.
Ideas aren't irritating. Only the tone in which they are put forward.
I, for one, don't find this irritating/annoying/worth flaming. ;-)
0) Is there any need, to prevent social parasites feeding on the
contributors effort? (NO/YES)
No. "Social parasites" as you call them are the typical end users.
They want to use stuff without having to bother about how it is made or
the philosophy behind it.
Preventing them from using applications would be detrimental to the
Free/Open Source, as they would simply switch to pirated products. This
would unwittingly reduce demand for FLOSS products and thus the demand
for the contributors. (If required, I'll explain my point further with
examples after my exams :-D .)
2) If there is an need, how do we accomplish it?
Share the specific distro only among those who sign a
*contribute-alike* licence?
"Contribute alike" is an agreement which is formed between Distro
developer community ( structured FOSS service provider community ).
Its states the users should contribute.
I don't see a need. The user base for most successful opensource
product roughly looks like this:
90% - Users (no contribution)
09% - Bug reporters and contributors in other ways
01% - Developers
(I'm writing these proportions out of memory. The actual is probably
slightly different. However, it is a good approximation.)
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. The more the number of people, the
more the demand for the product, and it is this demand that fuels growth
for the product and it's contributors.
Note: The success of a product is not how many contributors it has, but
how many users it has. Any effort to curb this number will reflect
badly on the product.
3) *What all could be the terms of a contribute-alike license?*
a) Support the developers with resonable donations in cash.
If the developers want to ask for cash, they can sell the
product/services or ask for donations. All open source licenses allow this.
And people do contribute to keep their favourite projects alive. eg:
wikipedia
b) Make an obligate (relaxed) agreement on the user would
contribut to FOSS
If end users are bothered with obligations, they will choose not to be
obligated at all.
c) Time-bank (spend some hours in any way good for the socety. any
progressive way, not only IT service)
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
discusses time banking concepts around kerala.(I am not the
lead, i am just an ardent reader of time banking)
http://www.timebanks.org/,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_currency are
interesting reads.
Like you pointed out in an earlier thread, there are a class of people
who cannot be bothered with these. (doctors, etc.)
d) Making a commitment would make people reluctant to adopt the
specific Distro
+1. C-DAC, India has a Debian based distro BOSS linux. It is really
good and has most stuff that people need, as well as a very good support
for regional languages.
The problem with it is that the forum is too tightly guarded. (My
request to join has been pending for weeks.) As a result, it has just
~100 registered members. Restrictions can only hurt inclusion.
e) People would readily adopt the Distro, as most of them are
wiling to contribute to the society, and be a part of something
progressive.
+1. Most people don't know what a distro is. As more people get
involved, more people would also inevitably start contributing. Note:
The point is not that all people contribute. It is that there is a
size-able community.
f) There is no phenomenon/process like 'parasitisation on GPL
product' in FOSS world, it would just add confusion.
d) Distro development team would be much more pleased to commit,
as there is direct evidence of social change, and never has to
bear with a feeling that they are feeding permanent 'free lunch
eaters'.
The distro teams contribute due to many reasons. For some - it's a job,
for others - it's a hobby, but for most, it's what they like to do.
So they'll contribute whether people contribute back or not. Not all
people are looking for a reward. For some, the work is its own reward.
d) This is all already understood, there is no need of
formalisation/discussion/consolidation.
There is always room for discussion. But once a particular track has
been identified as irrelevant, it must be discarded. To quote our
honourable Home minister, "/A 20 hour debate doesn't contribute anything
more than a 3 hour debate./"
e) Phrase (0) is too offensive, redraft.,
+1. :-)
f) a better word for "contribute-alike" :
If the license does come to being (I hope not), "contribute-alike" seems
like a good name.
g)This is hard to put to practice
i)This would be impractical
If it helps, it should be put into practice. However, IMHO, it is
detrimental to FLOSS movement.
Regards,
Robin
--
"Freedom is the only law".
"Freedom Unplugged"
http://www.ilug-tvm.org
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ilug-tvm" group.
To control your subscription visit
http://groups.google.co.in/group/ilug-tvm/subscribe
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For details visit the google group page:
http://groups.google.com/group/ilug-tvm?hl=en
