RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Are there proposed ways to raise funds forOSGeoprojects?
Robert, very interesting structuring of the open source/closed source divide. I would add that in open source funding initiatives like donation campaigns, a fundamental distinction is the client "pays" what it can *afford* at that time, and according to an estimate - that does not account for profit - divided by all of the community. When paying, the client/user is effectively paying itself at some degree for the ability to continue a strategy (to use/implement an open source product). Services on the other hand will still make up a nice market, for projects and customizations, always according to each product success/dissemination. Duarte De: Robert Hollingsworth [mailto:r...@prodigy.net] Enviada: segunda-feira, 6 de Junho de 2011 20:33 Para: OSGeo Discussions Assunto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Are there proposed ways to raise funds forOSGeoprojects? There might be some insights if we draw parallels between these open source funding issues and how traditional closed-source companies finance what they do. Actually the differences between open and closed source may be more instructive: It seems to me that open source is, essentially, not-for-profit by nature. Putting aside any incorporation legalisms in our respective countries as to what defines not-for-profit, the fact that open source precludes the write-once-sell-many, per-seat or -site license model means there is no realistic opportunity for a non-linear return-on-investment. So we can forget about funding sources such as venture capital, large-volume private investors, business loans, publicly traded stock -- or getting bought by Microsoft :) Put another way, open source is a services model. There are plenty of for-profit software service providers out there; they tend to categorize their efforts as billable vs non-billable. The administrative work, such as documentation, QA, release management -- plus the overall task of keeping the OSGeo infrastructure umbrella healthy -- fall under non-billable. The for-profit business handles this by charging enough for billable work to cover the non-billable expenses. What is the open-source equivalent of this? Individual projects paying 'dues'? Mostly it is the massive amount of volunteer work within the projects or within OSGeo committees. If a commercial software services company's business model is based on customizing a popular off-the-shelf product, then they can really let ESRI or Autodesk or Bentley or Intergraph of whoever worry about how to finance development of the core product. In my own independent consulting, my relationship to Mapserver, PostGIS, and so forth has been to set up these free products for a client and build a custom solution around them -- and charge for the entire exercise. I can imagine enhancing a core product and passing on that expense to client, providing I make it clear up front that a portion of what's being developed will enter the public domain. But only if the cost of the improving the core is relatively small and is a critical component of the total solution. Otherwise, my client is likely to complain "Hey, why am I paying for all this stuff that everyone else is going to be able to use for free?" This leaves the open source projects somewhat at a loss for a predictable way of adequately funding the write-once-give-away-many core product, given that most of the established means used by the closed-source entities to fund their per-seat/per-site systems aren't applicable. I'm very interested in exploring what kind of formal structures the open source developers AND users can construct whose advantages most closely match -- in the eyes of the users -- the advantages of the traditional off-the-shelf license-based product model they've been conditioned to expect and utilize for decades. Primarily: pay a predictable, "reasonable" sum of money to acquire a quantifiable set of application capabilities, where the total development cost of those capabilities far exceeds the price they are paying. Meanwhile, these structures must retain all the well known advantages of open over closed source. Moreover, this model must accommodate large volumes of core product development, and, at the same time, integrate well with per-client customization services. Robert H. So the danger with any kind of "bounty" funding model is it misses out on: - paying osgeo to keep the servers up and the lights on - documentation - quality assurance - other "maintenance" activities website, release of software, check issues to produce release notes etc... Now I know none of the above is as sexy as asking people to fund a specific feature they are interested in. In a couple of projects I work on; I will pick on GeoTools as an example, we are well served by the existing model where developers work; often as consultants; to add specific functio
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Are there proposed ways to raise funds forOSGeoprojects?
There might be some insights if we draw parallels between these open source funding issues and how traditional closed-source companies finance what they do. Actually the differences between open and closed source may be more instructive: It seems to me that open source is, essentially, not-for-profit by nature. Putting aside any incorporation legalisms in our respective countries as to what defines not-for-profit, the fact that open source precludes the write-once-sell-many, per-seat or -site license model means there is no realistic opportunity for a non-linear return-on-investment. So we can forget about funding sources such as venture capital, large-volume private investors, business loans, publicly traded stock -- or getting bought by Microsoft :) Put another way, open source is a services model. There are plenty of for-profit software service providers out there; they tend to categorize their efforts as billable vs non-billable. The administrative work, such as documentation, QA, release management -- plus the overall task of keeping the OSGeo infrastructure umbrella healthy -- fall under non-billable. The for-profit business handles this by charging enough for billable work to cover the non-billable expenses. What is the open-source equivalent of this? Individual projects paying 'dues'? Mostly it is the massive amount of volunteer work within the projects or within OSGeo committees. If a commercial software services company's business model is based on customizing a popular off-the-shelf product, then they can really let ESRI or Autodesk or Bentley or Intergraph of whoever worry about how to finance development of the core product. In my own independent consulting, my relationship to Mapserver, PostGIS, and so forth has been to set up these free products for a client and build a custom solution around them -- and charge for the entire exercise. I can imagine enhancing a core product and passing on that expense to client, providing I make it clear up front that a portion of what's being developed will enter the public domain. But only if the cost of the improving the core is relatively small and is a critical component of the total solution. Otherwise, my client is likely to complain "Hey, why am I paying for all this stuff that everyone else is going to be able to use for free?" This leaves the open source projects somewhat at a loss for a predictable way of adequately funding the write-once-give-away-many core product, given that most of the established means used by the closed-source entities to fund their per-seat/per-site systems aren't applicable. I'm very interested in exploring what kind of formal structures the open source developers AND users can construct whose advantages most closely match -- in the eyes of the users -- the advantages of the traditional off-the-shelf license-based product model they've been conditioned to expect and utilize for decades. Primarily: pay a predictable, "reasonable" sum of money to acquire a quantifiable set of application capabilities, where the total development cost of those capabilities far exceeds the price they are paying. Meanwhile, these structures must retain all the well known advantages of open over closed source. Moreover, this model must accommodate large volumes of core product development, and, at the same time, integrate well with per-client customization services. Robert H. So the danger with any kind of "bounty" funding model is it misses out on:- paying osgeo to keep the servers up and the lights on- documentation- quality assurance- other "maintenance" activities website, release of software, check issues to produce release notes etc... Now I know none of the above is as sexy as asking people to fund a specific feature they are interested in. In a couple of projects I work on; I will pick on GeoTools as an example, we are well served by the existing model where developers work; often as consultants; to add specific functionality to the library. But it has not always been so smooth and we had to adjust our procedures to avoid trouble. As an example just today I had a user on IRC asking how SQLViews work. This functionality was added, on contract, to meet a deadline - and has not been documented. The challenge is to patch up the funding model does so it captures enough resources to do everything that is required. - In GeoTools we have taken steps to make the tasks actually required visible. The developers guide offers volunteers, contractors and other potential investors specific QA and documentation targets to be met for the functionality to be included. It also offers a "jail" of unsupported modules where code lives that has not yet met the requirements; the steering committee does not distribute this code; but it is there for people to work on as they have time.- We also have adjusted our change control procedure to list a number of tasks to
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Are there proposed ways to raise funds forOSGeoprojects?
So the danger with any kind of "bounty" funding model is it misses out on: - paying osgeo to keep the servers up and the lights on - documentation - quality assurance - other "maintenance" activities website, release of software, check issues to produce release notes etc... Now I know none of the above is as sexy as asking people to fund a specific feature they are interested in. In a couple of projects I work on; I will pick on GeoTools as an example, we are well served by the existing model where developers work; often as consultants; to add specific functionality to the library. But it has not always been so smooth and we had to adjust our procedures to avoid trouble. As an example just today I had a user on IRC asking how SQLViews work. This functionality was added, on contract, to meet a deadline - and has not been documented. The challenge is to patch up the funding model does so it captures enough resources to do everything that is required. - In GeoTools we have taken steps to make the tasks actually required visible. The developers guide offers volunteers, contractors and other potential investors specific QA and documentation targets to be met for the functionality to be included. It also offers a "jail" of unsupported modules where code lives that has not yet met the requirements; the steering committee does not distribute this code; but it is there for people to work on as they have time. - We also have adjusted our change control procedure to list a number of tasks to be performed; with *names* next to them. This allows to check that "the next great idea" has enough volunteers available to proceed in a safe fashion. This is often where volunteers providing help testing can make a massive difference. So when gathering up resources for a "feature" consider putting down a series of price points with a clear indication of what can be accomplished at each price point. You can even include OSGeo as one of the earlier price points (perhaps next to a subversion branch) and some of the later ones (white paper and publicity). -- Jody Garnett On Monday, 6 June 2011 at 1:35 AM, Eli Adam wrote: > PostGIS Raster seems to be doing pooled funding here: > http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/wiki/WKTRaster/PlanningAndFunding > > I don't know how well the effort has been promoted and publicized, I just > learned about it from a recent email on the PostGIS list: > http://postgis.refractions.net/pipermail/postgis-users/2011-June/029791.html > > Eli > > > > > Robert Hollingsworth mailto:r...@prodigy.net)> > > > > 06/04/11 9:32 AM >>> > I've been discussing variations on an idea for a while with various people: > > Form pools of users around specific application functionality that the users > share > a need for. They team up with developers to collaboratively specify and > develop > software. The users in the pool contribute a fraction of the total cost of > the project. > > It's not a radically different model from what happens in open source > development all the time, but the user sees a more direct benefit resulting > from > their financial contribution: "I'm spending US$1000.00 as my share of > extending > so-and-so project with the such-and-such capability I need right now." This > seems like a stronger funding recruitment than "I'm contributing US$1000.00 > to > project so-and-so, and I hope the such-and-such capability I need shows up > soon." And definitely more attractive than "I'm footing the entire cost of > US$22,000.00 to hire consultants to extend project so-and-so with the > such-and-such capability I need." > > > From a developer's perspective, this also seems like a natural progression > > on the > continuum that begins with the traditional closed-source, license-driven > "develop- > once-sell-many" model. From my own perspective, I'd certainly enjoy > repeatedly > being paid to create essentially the same $22,000.00 product for multiple > users, > but realize it's better to have them collectively pay me $22,000.00 ONCE for > something they all use, than to have NONE of them pay me anything because > they cannot afford to individually finance the entire project. > > Having said all that, I can think of many reasons why this type of funding > structure would be difficult to set up and maintain. I may elaborate on these > in a > followup message, but in the meantime I'd like to hear what others think > about > this kind of approach. > > Robert H. > > *** TOTALLY IGNORE this test paragraph to see if my web mail editor > generates ridiculously long auto line wraps when I post to OSGeo mail lists, > which is what I think I have observed before when I don't manually insert > line breaks. If this does NOT generate a ridiculously long message which > requires horizontal scroll to be able to read each line, then I apologize for > this ridiculously long test paragraph! *** > > Duarte, > > I agree with you and have similar ideas
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Are there proposed ways to raise funds forOSGeoprojects?
PostGIS Raster seems to be doing pooled funding here: http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/wiki/WKTRaster/PlanningAndFunding I don't know how well the effort has been promoted and publicized, I just learned about it from a recent email on the PostGIS list: http://postgis.refractions.net/pipermail/postgis-users/2011-June/029791.html Eli >>> Robert Hollingsworth 06/04/11 9:32 AM >>> I've been discussing variations on an idea for a while with various people: Form pools of users around specific application functionality that the users share a need for. They team up with developers to collaboratively specify and develop software. The users in the pool contribute a fraction of the total cost of the project. It's not a radically different model from what happens in open source development all the time, but the user sees a more direct benefit resulting from their financial contribution: "I'm spending US$1000.00 as my share of extending so-and-so project with the such-and-such capability I need right now." This seems like a stronger funding recruitment than "I'm contributing US$1000.00 to project so-and-so, and I hope the such-and-such capability I need shows up soon." And definitely more attractive than "I'm footing the entire cost of US$22,000.00 to hire consultants to extend project so-and-so with the such-and-such capability I need." >From a developer's perspective, this also seems like a natural progression on >the continuum that begins with the traditional closed-source, license-driven "develop- once-sell-many" model. From my own perspective, I'd certainly enjoy repeatedly being paid to create essentially the same $22,000.00 product for multiple users, but realize it's better to have them collectively pay me $22,000.00 ONCE for something they all use, than to have NONE of them pay me anything because they cannot afford to individually finance the entire project. Having said all that, I can think of many reasons why this type of funding structure would be difficult to set up and maintain. I may elaborate on these in a followup message, but in the meantime I'd like to hear what others think about this kind of approach. Robert H. *** TOTALLY IGNORE this test paragraph to see if my web mail editor generates ridiculously long auto line wraps when I post to OSGeo mail lists, which is what I think I have observed before when I don't manually insert line breaks. If this does NOT generate a ridiculously long message which requires horizontal scroll to be able to read each line, then I apologize for this ridiculously long test paragraph! *** Duarte, I agree with you and have similar ideas. I just recently sent an email similar (cites National Public Radio and Wikipedia examples) to these ideas to the Board. http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2011-June/003816.html The premise of my idea is that there are numerous agencies and companies that have employees with minor budgetary authority to spend ~$500 on software and these individuals are often using OSGeo projects and getting assistance using these OSGeo projects on the email lists and IRC. It makes sense that these people might be involved in sponsorship. What do others think? Although not heavily promoted, OSGeo and some projects can accept money through OSGeo here, http://www.osgeo.org/sponsorship/opportunities Some have $500 minimums. Here is the content of that email: Board, I started this email about six months ago and wanted to keep refining it and adding bits, but, it seems to be the opportune time to send it since it is a current topic for the Board (and it is already far too long - perhaps I should have spend more time removing not adding). I have some ideas pertaining to fundraising that I did not find previously discussed on the board or fundraising email lists. Searching the wiki and board minutes didn't turn up this discussion either. Perhaps these ideas have already been discussed and discarded in other venues. I think that OSGEO projects could get substantial funds from many corporate and agency users in $500-$2,000 increments on an annual basis. I am thinking of a fundraiser very similar to the National Public Radio style in the States. That is that for one week instead of providing high quality, commercial free, respected news and music, they focus at least 50% of the time on fundraising. In addition to changing the focus to fundraising they use all methods possible to fundraise. The methods seem almost extreme. It verges on berating, guilt, coercion, and other less dignified methods. Here are some clips that highlight some of these methods although mixed with humor, http://www.vpr.net/episode/49677/ If you have never listened to a NPR style fundraiser, I would suggest listening to one (although I also suggest listening to the station for a week without fundraiser to experience some of the more positive aspects of NPR). There s
