I have looked at hundreds of languages and flavors more as a kind
of hobby these days. I know these comments are getting a bit
tedious by now, but what I think clojure needs is higher visibility.
Right now only a handful of people know about it. The thought
occurred to me while I was installing another open source language
system today, I (but have only dabbled in clojure a bit so far), was
that they had a visually appealing website. Visual signals send a
strong message. This particular one has a lucious red strawberry
(hint hint) motif, simple, clean, and appealing, and kind of
lightens up a drab subject, makes it almost.. well I won't get into
it. I'm coming at this as a bit of an outsider as have not been a
programmer in a long time since I got involved with start-ups. So
anyways, my point is, if you're looking for mass appeal, eveything
is pretty web-based packaging these days. Forget even the CD idea,
thats old, even for an old guy like me (I don't even have a CD drive
on my computer anymore !). Also a windows installer, and no asking
the user to compile things, make it as shrink wrapped as possible,
with a good online tutorial, and chat help all bundled together in
a quick install.
Brian
Rich Hickey 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-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
