Re: alternatives for funding (was: I want to give you money but it can't be called a donation)

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 01:36 -0200, Felipe G. Nievinski wrote:
> So I've done quite a bit of studying and editing here:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software>

Most of these methods are unacceptable to us because they involve the
creation of non-free software. In particular, the frequent suggestion
to sell non-free versions of Octave add-ons like a GUI or Octave-Forge
packages are non-starters. Perhaps we should improve the way we sell
support, because even though we're selling it, people like you think
we're selling something bad. We have highly qualified people like jwe
offering Octave support, but the webpage doesn't seem to be attractive
enough to buyers.

By the way, remember that GNU is more about free software than "open
source":

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

> IMHO, the very existence of xoctave is evidence that selling octave as
> a box is profitable.

Xoctave is non-free software, and I consider it a GPL violation.
Hopefully the upcoming GUI will make Xoctave obsolete, and it doesn't
seem like they've had huge success selling it, so it doesn't seem like
we need to make any further efforts to stop it.

> But I don't want to make a one-time purchase -- ideally it'd be
> offered for sale at large.

You want to make more than one purchase? I can draft a contract you
can show to your employer where you can renew every year.

We are already working on ways to fund Octave, but you have to
understand how selling free software can work:

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

> Assuming you agree, I've done some market research and found this
> option adequate:
> <http://www.fastspring.com/features.php>

That's not what "market research" means. When you do market research,
what you're doing is figuring out who's going to be buying Octave.
Instead, you seem to have researched infrastructure for selling
Octave. We don't need help with the infrastructure of selling Octave.

> It charges 8.9% for handling all the hassle of payment & refund -- %
> 91.1 of the sell value would go straight to donation.

The FSF already does this for us. We don't need another provider. The
FSF will also help us sell Octave if we figure out a way to do so, but
the consensus is that we don't want to sell Octave per se. We could
not figure out a way to do it that doesn't make at least one of the
core developers unhappy. I thought we would be able to sell binaries,
but people objected to putting binaries behind a paywall, or having
differently-branded binaries, or nagging the users to pay if they
download an unpaid binary.

Instead, we are going to try to cater to the fans. The people who are
already using Octave and loving it, those are the people that we want
to convince to make donations.

> Alternatively, there are free though non-customizable sites:

That's an oxymoron, like saying "a free enslaved man".

> Amazon doesn't serve well

There is no way that we will distribute GNU software or services via
Amazon. They make the Kindle, they DRM their store, they mistreat
their employees, and they make frivolous software patents.

- Jordi G. H.