Snowtide will be sponsoring Clojure. But, we're small, bootstrapped (i.e. not venture-funded), and just one of what I'll bet are a fair number of commercial users of Clojure.
If you're reading this, and you use, enjoy, and perhaps profit from Rich's hard work, please contribute or sponsor Clojure. - Chas 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 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... > [2]http://keionline.org/ec-mysql > [3]http://blog.linkedin.com/2009/03/20/project-voldemort-scaling-simple-... > [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
