All-or-nothing crowd-funding ultimatum to incentivise closed-source works to go open

[balupton]

See the idea here:

• https://twitter.com/balupton/status/415131858955816960

See the backstory here:

• https://twitter.com/balupton/status/415098070364200960
• https://twitter.com/balupton/status/415028686325161984
• https://github.com/dennisreimann/ioctocat/issues/422#issuecomment-31105128

• 5

The gist of it is:

The idea is to have a all-or-nothing crowd-funding ultimatum platform, where people can pledge $$$ only if the project goes open-source, which finally incentivises a business-model switch for the creators, rather than the existing I'll keep paying you while you do something I don't believe in which isn't that incentivising for you to switch.

Questions:

• Shall this be part of the go-open campaign, or a different site?
• Shall donations be one-off, recurrent (weekly), or both?
• Shall we handle donations, or use another system to do so?
• Could we get funding to achieve this?

[balupton]

/cc @johnedgar @patcon @robloach @whit537 your thoughts?

[RobLoach]

Neat idea, Ben. An open-source project to encourage other closed-source projects to Go Open.

[RobLoach]

@balupton The Humble Bundle currently has deal with @PuppyGames to open source their projects to their customers if they reach a certain goal: https://www.humblebundle.com/weekly

Similar to what you're suggesting here.

[patcon]

I really like this idea :)

I'm just about to go offline for about a week, but one thought before I do: Is it actually just the open code that makes a good open company? I would contend that what makes a successful open company is the right leadership and community engagement model. The goldenboy examples here being Gittip and Travis-CI. So for a company to just open their code, and not adapt their mode of operation, it might result in failure. If they don't have an engaged community, this community might not be loyal enough to reject third parties who might try to leverage their code.

I only bring this up in the interest of avoiding the potential bad PR of horror stories from the first companies to engage with this proposed crowdfunding service :) Can we really, in good conscience, promise more success if the only thing we're asking for is open code? (I don't know the answer to this!)

Perhaps part of the "progress tracking" for a pending project, this system might also track benchmarks on the spectrum of "going open" -- public support desk, public finances, etc.

Having said this, in many ways this stuff is honestly just the responsibility of the company making the decision. Maybe it's not something the system should concern itself with. But hey, it might simply be a helpful way to further persuade them to walk down the open spectrum, highlighting the steps that others have taken, and showing that it isn't one-size-fits-all (ie. balanced vs gittip vs travis vs infochimps -- all differ in openness :)

[balupton]

Those are great points.

The two use cases that I see are:

• If I want to watch a movie, let's say "After Earth". If I were to pay $20 to go see it in an Australian cinema, then I am supporting the business model that discriminates against the majority of the world's population whom do not have $20 (but do have alternative ways of watching, e.g. an internet connection, bootleg cds, etc). I would also be discriminating against the all the creatives who would love to remix the work, but legally can't. As a man of integrity, I would then decide to not support such an unethical business model, and instead, decide to put my money where my mouth is — I will watch your film and give you the $20, but only if you open-source it — the thing here, is that with enough people backing, it presents a strong business case against discrimination.
• The other aspect of this, is the same is also true for closed software, closed music, whatever. For example, why should I pay $50/year to use a webservice, for the lame excuse of "we need some way of earning money" versus just donating to them via Gittip.

I'm sick and tired of donating to people via Gittip, in the hopes that one day they will go open and stop their discrimination. I'm sick and tired of financially supporting the business the models that I believe are unethically. I'd much rather say, behave ethically and take my money, then take my money, and maybe one day, you'll behave ethically.

Is it actually just the open code that makes a good open company

In regards to this ultimatum, we're not asking for them to become an open-company, just release specified works as open-source where it makes commercial sense to do so.

With enough people backing, with more awareness about the discrimination, and the alternatives, hopefully we can lead them to a place where they start releasing their works open-source from the start, and be supported via gittip or patreon, but that seems a long side-path that may not be able to apply to everyone.

For instance, would blockbusters ever make sense to going open-source from the start? I wouldn't think so, or at least not in the next 30 years perhaps. But using this ultimatum platform as a delayed open-source release ability, is quite nice, doesn't discriminate, while still allows traditional revenue, followed up with new revenue opportunies — as well as followed up by the remix culture, legally.

[balupton]

I'm also reminded, that if I were to purchase "The Matrix" on VHS... then say it comes out on DVD, I have to purchase it at full price again, and when it comes out on Blu-Ray, I have to purchase it at full price again, and when it comes out on Digital Download, I have to purchase it at full price again, and hope DRM limitations make sure I don't have to purchase it at full price again. And if I were to download the movie via the interwebz for free via say torrents, even though I own the VHS, I would be doing an illegal act. How anyone can call this ethical is beyond me, but it is the legal requirement, and their business model, which is what we must respect. However, if we can provide an ethical and financially viable alternative, via say the Go Open Ultimatum, then it can work quite well, to finally challenge, and change, the status quo, by leading by example.

[OhioVR]

Hello,

This is a really great idea. I have all kinds of ideas to go with it. I would love to use it for my own software.

There are many programs out there that are free but authors are not making much money anymore, or never did to begin with, or are not popular, or whatever. So for little utilities and software things and cheap games, it might make sense to the author to sell out and get out but at the same time, allowing the program to live at the same time. Would be nice if the auctioneer would provide free hosting and a web page on getting the code and binaries.

This can be the case for some surprisingly valuable code bases for example:

Autodesk did the unthinkable by slaughtering Softimage XSI. But what now? Are they going to just have a source code bon fire and eliminate it? If they make it opensource they just make a product that competes head to head with their other properties, Maya, and 3D studio max. So if they do that, it has to be worth their while. Free Softimage may not pull away users of other 3D software but it is a real possibility. Blender is free and it does amazing stuff, but I don't like its interface and I have programs that I like better and don't mind parting with real money for them. So I think there is plenty of room for new super 3D programs like Softimage Open Source edition. What would it be worth to Autodesk? Have to be worth more than 2 million, possibility a lot more. Would it be better than nothing?

There is a real need for Public Domain media. It helps our culture grow. They keep extending the copyright period it looks like it will be indefinite.

People should think of this like a trade. Do I keep selling software and making upgrades? Looking 10 years into the future how much money will I make? If i sell it for that amount or more, I've collapsed my risk, made all my backers happy, and improved human happiness all at the same time. Now I have money to do other things.