Re: [tlug] kickstarter for open source...

[Edward Middleton <edward.middleton@example.com>]

On 06/12/2013 06:16 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Ulrike Schmidt writes:
>
>   > So we agree we can drop the "spare change for UNICEF" comparison in
>   > favor of "retailing innovation"?
>
> No.  Look at the subject line.  It's not about the success or
> otherwise of Kickstarter.  It's about open source.
>
>   > Why not? Are there any reasons besides intuition? Because my
>   > intuition is that crowdfunding is perfect for open source projects
>   > although there might be some improvements specific for these kinds
>   > of project.
>
> Well, I'm an economics professor and you're not, so I personally am
> going to trust my intuition, not yours. :-)  Curt's intuition is
> tolerably close to mine, and that counts with me, too.
>
> As for other reasons, there's the economics of spam.  See below.
>
>   > So when I put my money into an open source project I am not only helping
>   > myself to a good piece of software, but I am also doing something for
>   > the community. Even better! The project will progress regardless of my
>   > motivation.
>
> I've already declared myself uninterested in your motivation.  I'm
> interested in your contraints.  If you can't get the product without
> paying, it's a purchase.  If you pay more than you have to (including
> anything if "have to" is zero), that portion is a donation.
>
> In open source, you don't have to pay (modulo "ransom" schemes[1] and the
> like).  There are about 100,000 projects on Sourceforge, there must be
> similar numbers on github and bitbucket, and a couple hundred on
> Savannah.  How many of those do you contribute to?  If a few FLOSS
> projects get big publicity for getting $1000 or more from Kickstarter,
> how many of them do you think will register?

From the point of view of the person sending funds, you are paying to 
have it done now.  The assumption is that kickstarter sets up some form 
of contract or legal obligation for the recipient to act and that 
failing to satisfy the obligation will have a significantly negative 
impact on the receivers future earning potential.  This looks more like 
contracting to me then any of the other analogies given.

Edward