Why the ads? [LWN.net]

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 12:15 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
In reply to: Why the ads? by hppnq
Parent article: Open Source Parking

Simple statistics tells me that as long as you keep parking sites on a non-Apache webserver, Microsoft will gladly take the reward for your efforts.

Uh-huh. I will probably have to change to apache.

More importantly: the software patents problem is not related to Free Software other than that it affects all programmers.

The economic structure of Free Software, particularly the fact that we don't charge copyright royalties, makes the problem worst for us.

It is also part of the bigger patent problem, where the pharmaceutical industry kicks in. I am not sure whether they'd be very impressed by the arrival of the Free Software PAC men.

If software has to be under the same rules as drugs, the pharmaceutical industry is going to have a lot to say about it. But that shows one way out of the particular problem of the pharmaceutical industry. Nobody in the Free Software camp should be swayed by "the other guy is too big to compete with" arguments, we've disproved that one before.

I'm quite sure organisations such as EFF and OSDL have thought and are thinking about that question very hard

You don't have to rely on me for this. Ask Dan Ravicher about OSDL's efforts.

to post comments

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 15:05 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (8 responses)

Uh-huh. I will probably have to change to apache.

Given your stated reasons for putting up an Open Source parking site, this seems an essential part of the plan, yes. Are you going to fake Apache headers?

The economic structure of Free Software, particularly the fact that we don't charge copyright royalties, makes the problem worst for us.

There is no "economic structure of Free Software". There is a simple statement in the GPL that cannot be reconciled with the current concept of software patents. But let's not go through that here now, that's not what this is about.

Let's face it. The PAC has been tried before, didn't work. I'd say this is a dead-end road, but you are of course welcome to give it another shot.

The only thing I find strange, is that for someone who is so experienced as you are, both in all things Open Source as well as entrepeurship, you are making some really odd moves.

For instance, why didn't you contact the Apache people first? It seems so obvious. Or is that just me? And why not be extremely open with respect to the money, from the start? Or am I wrong in thinking that, even though your organization cannot be a non-profit one, all of the profit simply goes to the good cause? I mean, the financial side of all this is not extremely complicated, is it? You could at least try to answer the obvious questions and be done with it.

You don't have to rely on me for this.

No, I didn't. :-)

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 18:12 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (7 responses)

Are you going to fake Apache headers?

You mean like this:

Apache 2.0 (compatible; Lighttpd 1.4.6)

[Note: joke is specific to people who read browser logs]

There is no "economic structure of Free Software". There is a simple statement in the GPL that cannot be reconciled with the current concept of software patents.

First, the GPL is not all Free Software. Even the BSD license contains an implicit patent grant. This is a legal conversation we should probably not carry on here.

Second, economics is everything in this, because there are people who want us to pay for the right to make software, and we can't, and OSDL will never be able to, and IBM and HP neither could, nor want to.

I'd say this is a dead-end road, but you are of course welcome to give it another shot.

In a few years there may be no Free Software, if we don't take action.

For instance, why didn't you contact the Apache people first?

When did you last see Apache exercising any leadership in the Free Software community? They very strictly stay to the mission of generating code. Because of their structure and membership, they can't do anything about this as an organization. Individual members can and will have opinions and I am happy to discuss it with them.

It seems so obvious. Or is that just me?

Well, it may be experience. But I don't know who you are, and thus have no idea to judge your experience.

And why not be extremely open with respect to the money, from the start?

I am entirely open about money. I have laid out my plans for structure and how to spend it.

Or am I wrong in thinking that, even though your organization cannot be a non-profit one, all of the profit simply goes to the good cause?

I have already said that a small amount of money would go to operations and the rest to forming the PAC. I don't know what else can be added to that.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 19:14 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (4 responses)

You mean like this:
Apache 2.0 (compatible; Lighttpd 1.4.6)

Yes, that's what I meant. What I don't understand is why, apparently, the thought of getting people with bandwidth and Apache servers involved in this didn't come quite naturally to you. No need for an unrelated ad-campaign and epic goals.

When did you last see Apache exercising any leadership in the Free Software community? They very strictly stay to the mission of generating code.

This is not about leadership, it is about decency. You are using them.

I am entirely open about money. I have laid out my plans for structure and how to spend it.

What happens when you haul in a couple of grand and there is no and will not be a PAC? How much do you charge per hour? What happens if the money runs out? Those are things one can put down quite generally, and it's very simple. In fact, it's something that most organizations manage to do well before going into business. If you have a financial policy readily available, I'd be happy to receive a pointer to it.

But instead of taking the enterpreneurial route you might have also chosen to do it, if you allow me, the Open Source way: by getting people with actual Apache servers to shelter unused domains. That would have been my first instinct, if someone had forced me to come up with a solution for this "problem" of Netcraft statistics.

And let me see if I get this right.

Microsoft has every right to sell people their operating systems. They are going to get every ounce of publicity they can get out of the GoDaddy deal. Because statistics are stupid, this means they can claim many new brilliant installations of IIS. And they will.

You, on the other hand, set up a website that is not run by Apache, luring domain owners (regardless of what they are actually running on) to park idle domains with you. Then you put advertisements on those pages. People who haven't got the slightest idea about software patents are now going to click you closer to Washington DC, possibly through Open Source-friendly washing powder. You change your server configuration so it incorrectly displays "Apache 2.0", thereby actually changing and messing up webserver statistics, whoever gives a damn about them. You apparently don't think this will have consequences when Microsoft decides to go for the Netcraft statistics and its "Get the facts" campaign.

Hell, they'd actually be right for once.

And I'm nobody, Bruce. I'm just someone you represent.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 21:42 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

This is not about leadership, it is about decency. You are using them.

Did anyone from Apache say that? I doubt they think so, and I feel your sentiment is over the top.

What happens when you haul in a couple of grand and there is no and will not be a PAC?

Then would be an appropriate time to raise rabble. For you to assume that I'll behave this way, given my history in the community, is to say the least uncharitable.

You seem to feel I'm incapable of setting up Apache, too, and build a theoretical structure that IMO is far from what an average Free Software Developer (and Developers are the ones who need the help) would say, and then claim to be one of the people I represent while remaining anonymous.

Dave Cinege gave me an attack like this some years ago while I was taking care of Debian funds. As far as I'm aware, I eventually was able to show him I wasn't a bad guy. I can't think of anything that would change your opinion but time.

Bruce

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 22:33 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (2 responses)

For you to assume that I'll behave this way, given my history in the community, is to say the least uncharitable.

Don't be so easily offended. I was trying to make some rather technical points and I think the ample opportunity you had to address them appropriately would excuse my rudeness, if you are inclined to take it that way. And I just want to know where the money goes, this is not the Spanish Inquisition. Obviously you have plenty of options, but you refuse to detail them. You are indeed completely open about the things you have already publicly stated.

You seem to feel I'm incapable of setting up Apache, too, and build a theoretical structure that IMO is far from what an average Free Software Developer (and Developers are the ones who need the help) would say, and then claim to be one of the people I represent while remaining anonymous.

My name is Buddy. There is nothing special about me. I choose the somewhat cryptic "hppnq" because my name is rather popular around where you live (I'm Dutch) and it looks nice when I turn my monitor upside down.

You are a self-proclaimed Open Source evangelist. I am a self-proclaimed Open Source convert. Surely you represent me.

I am very confident that you will manage to set up Apache. It is typical that you should worry about that, there's a pattern here. What I am worried about, and you know this perfectly well, is that you are just not going to do that.

I can't think of anything that would change your opinion but time.

Oh please.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 17, 2006 0:10 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

OK, Buddy. I promise to report publicly on money. You can have my first report:

So far, there is no money and I am funding expenses out of my pocket. The only expense so far: I pay $200/month for a dedicated server running Debian and 2 terabytes/month of bandwidth, which supports Technocrat.net and various Open Source sites and has 24/7 supervision. So far OpenSourceParking is not more than 10% of that cost. The machine is not close to the bandwidth limit.

Ads are not running yet, only PSAs, as I feel it's important to build up the number of parked sites first. We need to get to 16 browser hits per minute around the clock to qualify for Adsense for Sites, although there are other venues and one company inquired about advertising directly.

Bruce

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 17, 2006 1:03 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Not exactly what I asked for, and nothing new worth mentioning, but still appreciated. Let me pre-emptively add that, no, I don't just accept any answer, and yes, my joy is sincere.

This is beginning to sound like the Spanish Inquisition.

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, and don't take this the wrong way: you are not seriously going to address the other issues any more, are you?

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 20:59 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (1 responses)

Oh and yes, one more question: did you intend the pun on those faithful lighttpd developers? ;-)

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 21:43 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I really like Lighttpd and am sad that I will not be able to use it for this project. That's all.