Proposal to Fund Debian Sparks Debate 162
lisah writes "The announcement earlier this week of 'experimental' group Dunc-Tank's plans to bankroll the work of certain Debian developers has sparked some controversy across the open source community. The leaders of Dunc-Tank say their primary motivation is to see that Debian version 4.0, also known as etch, is released on time this December. Debian developer Lucas Nussbaum, however, says that research shows that 'sometimes, paying volunteers decreases the overall participation.' Dunc-Tank member Raphaël Hertzog countered that the opposite is true and 'many Debian developers are motivated to work when things evolve,' a veiled reference to Debian's notoriously slow release cycle. Dunc-Tank member and kernel developer Ted Ts'o took the idea a step further and said, 'If money were among anybody's primary motivators...they probably wouldn't be accepting a grant from Dunc-Tank; they could probably make more money by applying for a job with Google — or Microsoft.'"
No no no (Score:1, Insightful)
Money isn't Everything... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've rarely seen a better motivator for getting something done - especially in a timely manner - than money. If I'm volunteering with children or for a good cause (no, I know - Debian is a good cause too, but you know what I mean) then I'm going to do my best regardless because I feel like I'm helping benefit people who are less fortunate than me. However, if I'm working a job to maintain myself (and possibly my family) and I'm volunteering to develop a large open-source project and not getting payed for that extra work I do when I get home or when I'm up late at night, then a little money can go a long way.
I don't think money would cause those being payed to work less at all, instead I think we'd see an increase in both the timeliness of development and the quality of code in the next Debian release.
What happened? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Highly motivated people can often not devote as much time as they would like to OSS because they have to go to a regular job to pay for food etc.
There are a lot of key Linux developers who provide huge benefit to the community, but would like to make it pay so that they can make a fulltime job of it. Go look at what some people like Hans Reiser have to say http://kerneltrap.org/node/5654 [kerneltrap.org] "Doing GPL work is doing charity work in our current legal and economic framework. That should be and could be changed, but for now it is so. I have done my share of charity, and I would not have a problem doing proprietary work.", and http://www.namesys.com/ [namesys.com] "For free software based on support revenues to be viable, people have to be more inclined to use our support service than they are to use the support services of persons who bundle our software with what they sell. Frankly, they are not, and this is why providing service on free software is failing as a business model for producing free software."
For my own part, I write OSS that saves people literally millions of dollars per year, yet I can only treat it as a hobby because it can't pay my bills.
Hopefully at some stage people start **paying** for stuff that is valuable to them. Unfortunately people grab what they can get for free.
Having good roads is very valuable, and you would not have those if they were not paid for. They are typically paid for by taxes because most people would not voluntarily dip into their pockets to pay for roads etc.
I think any methods that help get money into the hands of **key** OSS developers is a good thing.
Re:What happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay for the boring stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Paying selected developers could cause problems.
Instead, use the money to ensure that any developer who wants to contribute has a good experience, and to get the stuff done that no developers want to do. For example, you could pay people to do testing.
Re:How is this any different (Score:3, Insightful)
Some open-source projects have seemed to operate almost entirely on this principle. Take, for instance, LilyPond [lilypond.org]. Development for some time seemed to be done almost entirely by core developers who seemed to be getting paid for custom features. Spending time on these custom features, though, meant that other, more basic features were sometimes missing or lacking. (I wish I could give examples, but it has been a few months since I have used LilyPond.)
Now, the LilyPond site seems to emphasize the involvement of other developers, documentation writers, etc. [lilypond.org] There is a FAQ item that leads to a page about sponsoring features [lilypond.org], but I wonder if the focus has shifted more toward getting other volunteer contributors. The "call-for-help" page cites these reasons for wanting help:
I would say only the first reason really applies to Debian, but it is interesting that LilyPond seems to be taking the opposite approach to solving the problem.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful with bounties (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think payment is a solution to all developer problems, but it would allow some **key** developers to be able to do their OSS stuff fulltime instead of just part time. If you have a full-time job + family, then you can only spend x hours per week on OSS before you get fired or the wife kicks you out or whatever.
Why pay? (Score:2, Insightful)
No problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the office (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
You're the one handing it out for free, what do you expect?
Try eating karma (Score:2, Insightful)
Karma is overrated. Sure you can get a buzz to know your software is being used all over the world by hundreds of thousands of people, but it's far easier to get a buzz out of knowing that while you're driving around in a nifty new car paid for by your earnings.
Primary motivators (Score:1, Insightful)
For the developers who spend so much time they have little time left to make a decent living for themselves: those precious people have forgot to set the priorities in life. Money is not the answer, personal basic priorities are. I think the success of a open source product is more related to the community than dependence on individuals or companies.
What would be realistic expectations when you spend some developtime in some product? Not money, only some functionalit and if lucky also a developer community. Expecting money is unrealistic for the open source developer, nor does it contribute to a better community. If people tease with cash ans start complaining about the slow development of Debian, they should start using another product.
Re:Agile Vs Debian (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine for a moment, that you were working on an extremely specialized OSS project that only one company could profit from (absurd, I know). Since the code is free, they needn't pay you anything. However, you tell them that you need to put food on the table, and that to do any future work he will need pay. What can you expect of pay? If the expected value of having that developer work on that project is worth $X to the company, they should rationally be willing to donate up to $X voluntarily (ignoring some details like risk premiums). Why? Because the return on investment is good. Obviously in this case it'd be easier to hire him as an employee or contractor and make it an internal instead of OSS project, but that's not the point.
Now instead imagine that there's a million people who each would get $1 of value if that developer kept developing. For a modest $50k salary, that means a ROI on 1900%. Sure you could not pay, but it'd be stupid. However, here's where it breaks down: Imagine one person doesn't want to pay. You now have 999,999 people to share the costs, which means it's still profitable (expected value > investment), but it is far more profitable to the one not paying at all. Repeat that 950,000 times and it's no longer profitable. And the last 50,000 will go "Why should we be paying for everyone else?" and not pay either.
Basicly, it's the mass version of the prisoner's dilemma. They could have gotten a very good value for their money, but because everyone is acting egoistically, the result is that they don't.
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were coding on an OSS project, they'd get maybe a handful of hours per week out of me. Perhaps that's enough, perhaps it isn't. If I were being paid to work on it, and paid enough to do it full time, suddenly that goes from maybe 10 hours/week to 40 or 50.
It's not a question of interest, it's a question of time - there are only a certain number of hours available, and when you have a fulltime job and a family, you "lose" almost all of them to those commitments.
He's not saying that any given person should be paid because they deserve it, just that if people were to be paid, they could devote much more time to it.
But everyone is doing it (Score:2, Insightful)
Change can be good people, and it's not like this will be a perminate paying job. It's just for the next 2 months.
The difference between Work and Play (Score:4, Insightful)
Linus Torvalds started to build a Unix-like kernel "just for fun" and his fun project soon attracted contibutions even though Linus never offered any bounty or payment. So what's the difference between Work and Play? The former often sucks all the fun out of doing things while the latter usually encourages people to contribute simply because it's fun.
Raising funds to employ one or two release managers for a short period of time just before the "etch" release may actually be a very good idea but I hope that the people behind this "Dunc-Tank" idea keep in their mind that fun and play will always be much more powerful motivators than money in a volunteer project like Debian. A crash course into understanding why this should be so can be found in the second chapter of "Adventures of Tom Sawyer" by Mark Twain:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/74/74-h/p1.htm#c2 [gutenberg.org]Re:Money isn't Everything... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
And not gain any of the benefits of open source. The reason to use open source on a project is to gain the benefits of that approach. If your gaining benefits than it should not be such a stretch for you to pay to maintain those benefits as long as the cost/benefit ratio is in your favor.
You could hire an in house tech to work on some secret version of Debian for you alone or you could just pay the foundation to get things done quicker in the trunk. It should be readily apparent why the latter option would be preferable.
Re:Volunteering (Score:3, Insightful)
Or free OS supported by unfree games!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
Many companies hire OSS deveopers to improve performance and add features critical to their buisness. A large number of Linux kernel developers are actually payed to work full time on the kernel. IBM is a notable example, so are adaptech, SGI, namesys, SuSE and Redhat. For companies that can't afford a full dev they often donate to OSDL instead.
Re:How is this any different (Score:3, Insightful)