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

[Raymond Wan <rwan.kyoto@example.com>]

Hi Edward,


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Edward Middleton
<edward.middleton@example.com> wrote:
>  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.


This has been an interesting discussion...  I was just looking at the
Accountability Q&A on Kickstarter:

http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics#Acco

Q5 says that a creator is "legally obligated to fulfill the promises
of the project.  But the agreement looks admittedly weak.  It just
says that failure to do so will result in "damage to your reputation"
and "even legal action".  I came across one project which is by a
single person seeking a modest amount of funding for a software
project.  Unless you're a larger organization, reputation doesn't
matter too much.

So, we're left with legal action.  Which, as far as I can tell, is
difficult to start if the parties involved are in various countries.
Those cheated may have to start a Kickstarter project to pay for a
lawyer...  :-)

I can see what you mean about it being similar to contracting.  But it
still seems a weaker contract than (say) an organization signing a
contract to have a commercial software developer write a piece of
software, a web site, etc.  Presumably, if the developer does a poor
job or fails to deliver, it may be easier to take the matter to the
courts than a contract within Kickstarter.

Or, perhaps I've missed something?

Ray