| |||||||||||||
GUADEC: New funding models for open source softwareGUADEC: New funding models for open source softwarePosted Aug 16, 2012 8:33 UTC (Thu) by dd9jn (subscriber, #4459)In reply to: GUADEC: New funding models for open source software by danieldk Parent article: GUADEC: New funding models for open source software
How to you want to measure what packages are used? What about infrastructure packages, most users are not aware of?
(Log in to post comments)
GUADEC: New funding models for open source software Posted Aug 16, 2012 8:49 UTC (Thu) by danieldk (guest, #27876) [Link]
> How to you want to measure what packages are used?
Something akin to Debian's popcon.
> What about infrastructure packages, most users are not aware of?
Do you mean X.org, coreutils, libc et al.? They get a (big) share of the pie too, since in this setup, what counts is packages that are installed.
http://popcon.debian.org/ gives an impression of how donations are distributed in such a setup.
One potential problem is that some packages are small, but very popular. They might need less funding that larger, less frequently used packages (e.g. compare util-linux with Shotwell).
But I think the upside is that it guarantees a steady, predictable, income for the software projects that are the most fundamental to the free software ecosystem.
GUADEC: New funding models for open source software Posted Aug 16, 2012 12:42 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
> Do you mean X.org, coreutils, libc et al.?
I think the question was referring to things like Koji or Bodhi (for Fedora). Every user needs those things, but they're rarely installed.
The stats would also have to be exposed so that RPMFusion could do something similar for its packages (I imagine Fedora would do this anyway (assuming something akin were implemented) in the spirit of transparency).
GUADEC: New funding models for open source software Posted Aug 16, 2012 12:44 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
> One potential problem is that some packages are small, but very popular. They might need less funding that larger, less frequently used packages (e.g. compare util-linux with Shotwell).
There could be a field for "After what point is money better spent elsewhere?" possibly due to few full-time volunteers versus $DAYJOB developers.
GUADEC: New funding models for open source software Posted Aug 16, 2012 16:45 UTC (Thu) by tx (subscriber, #81224) [Link]
I think the other question is exactly who should be paid. The developer(s), obviously, but what about package maintainers, for example? They certainly do work and add value for users but it's unclear to me exactly how much of the pie that makes up.
|
|||||||||||||