I had some trouble trying to explain my university to pay for free software as well. They will much rather pay for a mathematica licence.
How about just a printed install CD for clojure. Utterly useless, but very tangible :). On Dec 15, 11:20 pm, Mike Hogye <stacktra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe take your ease-of-use idea in a slightly different direction and > call it "support." Lots of business models rely on selling support. > > I have found the support available through the Clojure community > (specifically: this Google Group, and the IRC channel) to be superb. > Could commercial/corporate devs be required to pay for access to this > community? > > Maybe: > * Hobby-only devs still get free access to group and channel, just > like now. > * Corporate devs get free access to group and channel while > evaluating Clojure. > * Once a corporate dev is no longer "just evaluating," payment is > required (per-developer per-year). > > For me, that would justify spending my company's money. And if I were > a potential Clojure user, it would not drive me away. > > On Dec 15, 3:09 pm, nchubrich <nicholas.chubr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Maybe the _thing_ could be a more packaged version of Clojure; > > something for which setup is a little more seamless, etc. No extra > > features, just convenience. Maybe an IDE plugin with extra debugging/ > > instructional features, and more facilities for browsing libraries > > (java and clojure). It could be something you buy by default, but > > with an opt-out for people who want to build it themselves. > > > On Dec 15, 8:50 am, Mike Hogye <stacktra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > +1 for the idea of offering a _thing_ for sale. > > > > The company I work for isn't going to give a donation; that's just not > > > something it does. But if there were a _thing_ I could purchase on the > > > company's dime, well ... it's much more standard for a company to make > > > a purchase than a donation. Particularly if the thing offered is > > > useful. > > > > Of course, it would take _work_ to make something to sell, and I don't > > > really have any strong suggestions. Maybe the community can build > > > something dual-licensed, whose proceeds go to developing Clojure > > > itself? Boils down to devs donating effort instead of cash. > > > > On Dec 15, 4:00 am, olalonde <olalo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm not convinced donations alone is a sustainable funding method. Why > > > > don't you derive a commercial product ? You could build an IDE for > > > > Clojure and sell it. You could write a book (although that is unlikely > > > > to really pay). You could build a "stackoverflow"-type community, > > > > organize events/conferences, etc. You might want to talk to some VC > > > > firm and see if they'd be interested in funding you. They could help > > > > you out figure a revenue model. > > > > > Best of luck! > > > > > On Dec 14, 9:33 am, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Funding Clojure 2010 > > > > > > Background > > > > > ---------- > > > > > > It is important when using open source software that you consider who > > > > > is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free > > > > > software. > > > > > > Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with > > > > > undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to > > > > > pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that > > > > > license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued > > > > > for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software, > > > > > lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure > > > > > doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but > > > > > precluding me from funding it via dual licensing. > > > > > > Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary > > > > > product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to > > > > > decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business > > > > > function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open > > > > > sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting > > > > > them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that > > > > > the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are > > > > > paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case > > > > > for Clojure. > > > > > > Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by > > > > > the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the > > > > > case for Clojure. > > > > > > Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary > > > > > support. It is important to note that often the support income does > > > > > not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income > > > > > models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5]. > > > > > That is not the case for Clojure. > > > > > > Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their > > > > > employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must > > > > > be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them > > > > > sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their > > > > > proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure. > > > > > > There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers > > > > > see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money > > > > > produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are > > > > > dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called > > > > > "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because > > > > > they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open > > > > > source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact, > > > > > we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no > > > > > source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates > > > > > value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it. > > > > > > Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they > > > > > don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source > > > > > software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like > > > > > to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who > > > > > create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to > > > > > see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open > > > > > source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to > > > > > dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work. > > > > > > Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of > > > > > open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the > > > > > proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct > > > > > connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those > > > > > that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source > > > > > software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of > > > > > someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely > > > > > compromising our profession. > > > > > > Foreground > > > > > ---------- > > > > > > As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started > > > > > as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far > > > > > more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or > > > > > corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of > > > > > another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing > > > > > Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear > > > > > that. > > > > > > Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more > > > > > have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough > > > > > money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on > > > > > Clojure has been compensated. > > > > > > Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure, > > > > > yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly > > > > > deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the > > > > > arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund > > > > > its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being > > > > > forced to do so. > > > > > > Here's how I think that could work: > > > > > > Individual users > > > > > > If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to > > > > > contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system. > > > > > I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough > > > > > that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself, > > > > > and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating, > > > > > a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a > > > > > country with a different income structure, please contribute a > > > > > commensurate amount. > > > > > > Businesses > > > > > > If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and > > > > > applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this > > > > > stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be > > > > > enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several > > > > > of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong > > > > > core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources > > > > > to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my > > > > > Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor > > > > > Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur > > > > > via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice > > > > > you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on > > > > > Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me > > > > > directly via email to make arrangements. > > > > > > Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on > > > > > Clojure. It is some of the most > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
