Art in general is auctioned and it's value is taken based on how much are people willing to pay for it.
I consider myself an artist and i go through a long and complicated quality assurance that i've developed which is:
Abstract - Figure out what you want to do and how
Brainstorm - (Where applicable) Discuss the implementation to avoid "Bad implementation by design" scenario where the software would require refactor in the future.
Update tracking with short summary of the implemented design
Peer-review of the implementation to capture as many bugs and design issue as possible
Implement tests and benchmarks
CI/CD implementation (including optimization for translations)
Update of documentation
Submit the merge request to upstream for merge (designed to take as little of upstream resources as possible)
This approach takes much more resources (takes longer and requires lots of sanity) while being unsustainable economically. Thus i like the idea of:
a) Allowing anyone to pay financial contribution to be added as license owner
b) Auction the code and provide the buyer as art owner which is then considered it's property without affecting the software development.
c) Held an auction that allows anyone to buy the source code for specified time after which it will be re-auctioned.
^ Note that neither of them are meant to transfer copyright and to not have an influence over the development.
I also like the idea to be take it as an investment by the buyer with an option to profit off of the winnings e.g. requiring to put the source code in auction after X amount of time and the Y% off of the winning going to the project with possibility for something like a certificate of ownership.
This is WIP proposal to discuss
Software as Artin FSFE.Blocked by implementation of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/14644
Art in general is auctioned and it's value is taken based on how much are people willing to pay for it.
I consider myself an artist and i go through a long and complicated quality assurance that i've developed which is:
This approach takes much more resources (takes longer and requires lots of sanity) while being unsustainable economically. Thus i like the idea of: a) Allowing anyone to pay financial contribution to be added as license owner b) Auction the code and provide the buyer as art owner which is then considered it's property without affecting the software development. c) Held an auction that allows anyone to buy the source code for specified time after which it will be re-auctioned.
^ Note that neither of them are meant to transfer copyright and to not have an influence over the development.
I also like the idea to be take it as an investment by the buyer with an option to profit off of the winnings e.g. requiring to put the source code in auction after X amount of time and the Y% off of the winning going to the project with possibility for something like a certificate of ownership.