Re: [Fsfe-uk] Funding Open Source

[ian]

On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 00:42, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > One of the goals I have for the AFSP is for it to undertake funded/sponsored
> > projects. The intention is that a project would generate a proper proposal
> > for the sponsor detailing timescales, resource requirements, the amount of
> > funding required etc. and, if necessary, act as employer for project members
> > during its lifetime.
> 
> This sounds ideal and definately the way forward. Question is, with
> Linux developers spread over many miles (for Scribus, Franz is in
> Germany, Peter in the US and I'm in the UK), how will you be able to
> fund it (I'm talking more the logistics involved with tax - or would
> people be expected to be classed as self employed but grant maintained
> [if you see what I mean])?
> 
> > Obviously this requires the project members to act accordingly e.g. deliver
> > on time, follow the project plan etc. Whether this is too much to expect of
> > your average free software developer remains to be seen but with the demands
> > imposed by the likes of upcoming software patents and IP claims etc., I can
> > see that free software developers will have to adapt to new working methods
> > anyway.
> 
> IP and the licence would definately (definitely :-) ) be a problem,
> especially with so few
> companies actually understanding fully the GPL, having been fed so much
> FUD by the big companies over it over the years.

if the companies sign up they will understand the license. It will be
self-filtering. There are other ways of getting funding other than
through private companies. Government funding is a possibility and I'm
working on some other ways of generating development income. 
> 
> In normal circumstances, the IP and copyright and licencing conditions
> would become those of the person paying the money. However, in free
> software, the IP and copyright are normally those of the author(s) and
> licenced how they see fit (typically, GPL or LGPL). It is definately a
> difficult situation.

Not if the development costs are lower. The choice is pay massive
amounts and hold the copyright or pay substantially less and have it
GPL. If the company is not in the software business the latter will
almost certainly be attractive, particularly if the cost is lower than
it would have to pay in software licenses.

> There is also then the legalities. For instance, for Rosegarden, I did a
> lot of reverse engineering on the Sibelius file format and for Scribus,
> the same with Quark, PageMaker 5, 5.5 and 6 as well as hacked around
> with the single file format of Impression files and Acorn DTP (which is
> available from GSM [IIRC] commercially, but for PCs).
> 
> I was not able to implement them for a variety of reasons, the main one
> was that as the code was as a result of breaking the original licence
> conditions, it would make the derived code a threat to the package.
> 
> As to the legality of this, I don't know - as Scribus (and Rosegarden)
> are free and all work done on them is in spare time, no-one has the
> money to check out if the incorporation of the derived code would cause
> issues.
> 
> It certainly is a minefield, but I'm sure the obstacles can be shoved
> out of the way and this really worthwhile project pushed forward. Good
> luck Neil :-)

Yes, sounds a good idea.

-- 
ian <address@hidden>