SourceXchange goes into beta 40
EEPROM writes "SourceXchange is now officially in beta and is accepting developer registrations. You can register here. " Excellent idea on a way to get Open Source developers paid-check out CoSource for another interesting model.
US only (Score:1)
The web site does state this and indeed goes on to say that they are trying to extend the scheme to other countries and tax systems.
Really this is a major headache for this sort of operation and the developers too - sXc get bogged down in paperwork and the developers have to file more tax returns...
It's too complex and boring!
Re:Lowballing could be a problem (Score:1)
If the sponsor really thought it needed a high quality, highly reliable piece of software with the same quality as they would expect as one in written in a "corporate environment", then I would expect that they would pay comparable amounts to what they would normally spend anyway...
BTW, This is not to say that open source software is not of the same quality as software written in "corporate enviroments", its just to say that the sponsors should expect commensurate effort for commensurate rewards...
I personally think it's all going to balance out in the end. The important thing is not to pre-judge it but to give it a chance to work itself out...
Re:Not the right way to do this (Score:2)
That's not exactly correct. Although the Camel is definitely an authoritative book on Perl, it isn't the official reference manual. The latter is bundled with Perl (type perldoc to find it). It's also published in various formats on CPAN. It documents the latest stable release, unlike the Camel.
Cool (Score:1)
I think it's high time that there was a network of OSS developers. A great way for us to get in touch w/ each other too.
But why can't they just use AOL Insta*oops* :)
I think you can figure out how to email me
Re:Not the right way to do this (Score:2)
I agree. However, I have yet to hear of either of these organizations taking up this role.
The argument seems a little illogical to me to say that this project is starting out on the wrong foot because 2 other organizations you mention could do a better job. Especially when taken into account that neither of them *have* done this job.
It does, however, make sense to say that they are starting out on the wrong foot just for being for-profit.
Otherwise, I heartily agree with the rest.
-Lisa
Re:Not the right way to do this (Score:2)
Re:Cool (Score:1)
Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done (Score:1)
The GPL's disownment of warranties is probably OK in most jurisdictions because the author genuinely did not supply the software to you for any particular purpose, and you did not pay money or enter into a contract in any other way.
Free Software Bazaar: grass roots alternative (Score:1)
The Free Software Bazaar also is open to developers from all nationalities, so please check it out.
Axel
--
Re:O'Reilly Books are written by people. (Score:1)
As an author and a coder I'd have to partially disagree with this.
By far the majority of computer books that are written come from an idea from the publisher. That is, the publisher will have an idea for a brand of book (eg the Dummies series) and then develop titles for it. This is usually done in conjunction with someone knowledgable in that area (usually the writer of the first book). The various titles are developed, a rough outline of the topic coverage and a list of potential authors. At this point, the development editor(s) (sometimes called acqusition editors) will start recruiting writers either by direct contact or through an agency. Now, if you approach the publisher first with a completely outlined, highly detailed (and preferably at least half written) book, then you have some good cause to ask for a different copyright scheme. A lot of the time you will get it too - it just depends on who the publisher is (O'Reilly is much more favorable to this than say Addison-Wesley).
Once an interested author has been found, the title is then developed to a much finer detail with the development editor etc until it is passed of to the series editor, tech editors etc for the actual writing.
Now the writer has a fair say in what happens with the book, but in general it doesn't go to the extents of saying "how would you like to license this book?". The publisher owns the copyrights on the basis that they solicited the work from you, not you proposing the work to them. Depending on your status as an author (prior recognition in your community etc) you can negotiate a reasonable degree of freedom. For example, I always get a release for all of the code (non-exclusive rights for redistribution yada yada yada...). This allows me to publish and further develop the code from the book as Open Source (usually LGPL'd because it is library type code). One of the benefits of this is that it helps to further enhance the author's reputation and also sells a lot more copies of the books.
(Side note: I've recently been contacted by a publisher that wants to do a Linux book under the Open Content licensing scheme. That was one of the first things they stated, so it does happen).
To prevent a few further comments - This code is all Java stuff or VRML. The documentation is always freely available online. What the book gives the reader is many of the inside tips of why things were done in certain ways. At least in my approach to writing I use the book to teach people how to approach designing stuff using the language APIs given to develop various types of libraries. I then proceed to develop a particular library, which is what ends up being the OSS product I put on my website. The book is not the design documentation or official API guide, but a way of approaching design philosophically. From most of the authors that I chat with, this is typically the case. The big exception to the rule is the "Bible" or "Nutshell" books that are just API references with a bit of extra stuff thrown in.
After you spend the $1000 to form a corporation (Score:1)
...you discover that you're still liable like a sole proprietorship until you hire your first employee. That's the magic number: 1 employee.
Suddenly it's a lot more expensive to incorporate for the purpose of evading liability.
RowlandGreat!! Now we can get paid for work done (Score:3)
I have often wondered if I would see a dime from adding my 5000 lines of code to this or that project. Now if I can work real hard, I can quit my day job and work from my home office. Wait, what happens if I miss a bug and I deliver M$ quality software? Does this mean I have to form a class C corp., so I can be protected by the law of the land if I screw up? I sure does. If anyone out there signs up. Do it after you spend the $1000 to form a corporation. Your code could get you in trouble with some BIG money organization if you fail to perform to what they consider the standard. I know that good code in my eyes (and everyone else's) could be crap to a big company desk jockey that does not know the difference between stack and heap memory.
Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done (Score:1)
Re:Good AND Bad?? (Score:2)
The money will basically end up as a perk for some developers, although obviously in some cases projects will get better talent than they might have otherwise. IOW, it'll have an effect, but I can't see it devastating Open Source, since (as you pointed out) the "basic motivation" for such coders isn't money.
Liability (Score:1)
--Shoeboy
I can't live with clause 10.1 (Score:1)
Re:What if Microsoft hires away these OSS develope (Score:3)
--Shoeboy
With money comes accountability (Score:2)
Joe Rabinoff
What will the result be...? (Score:1)
However, I think the source exchange will be A Good Thing(tm). For example, imagine a developer toying with the idea of a certain project, but wondering if it will be worth the trouble. That extra dough could be enough motivation. Or imagine a developer who has created a hack for her own use, but it's still not very robust, and she doesn't really feel like releasing it. Then she sees that company X is willing to pay $200 for it. That could be enough to convince her to clean up the bugs and release it. At any rate, I don't think this will hurt OSS, but I doubt that it will revolutionize it either.
Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done (Score:1)
Would this not protect the author from a lawsuit over the quality of the code when the GPL, LGPL or similar is attached to the source code?
And SourceXchange promptes the open source development model. So one would assume that many of the finished projects will be GPLd.
Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done (Score:1)
I'm not sure whether or not a corporation is required, however just in case anyone is interested basic registration costs of an corporation are only about $250.00
Consulting with a lawyer and having him/her draw up the contracts and submit the paperwork may cost you $1000 or even more, but if you take a little time to investigate and contact your state attorney general's office, or at least I think it's the attorney general, the proceedure is actually pretty easy.
As a matter of fact, a number of states have implemented websites to automate most of the work. A user logs on fills out the paperwork online and then prints out the form. After that it is merely a matter of sticking the form in the mail and attaching a stamp.
Lando
Source Exchange? No thanks. (Score:1)
--
I noticed
Not the right way to do this (Score:4)
The commercial Open Source clearing houses claim to be "more professional", but that's a red herring. A non-profit can contract the same consultants and reviewers that the commercial companies would. I'm also concerned that some of the commercial clearing houses have a vested interest in steering grants away from the non-profits who have done so much great work for us.
For an individual donor in the U.S, a non-profit organization with "501(c)3" tax status is up to 33% more effective per dollar spent. When I give FSF or SPI a grant, I can write the amount of of my income on my federal taxes. I get up to 1/3 back, and I can use that to fund more Open Source projects.
Then there's the responsibility issue: we know that FSF and SPI will run their projects for the benefit of the community. We can't say the same about the for-profits, they'll try to do the right thing when they can afford it and they'll put some free software pundits on their boards to appease us. I'm also concerned about some of the companies involved. For example, SourceXChange is an O'Reilly and Associates project, and O'Reilly's not, in my opinion, a good citizen of the Open Source community. For example, there's that situation with Perl: the software's Open Source, but the official reference manual is proprietary to O'Reilly. How open is it really if the documentation is closed? Do we want that to be the case with more software? Other publishers seem much more willing or able to get documentation with Open Source licenses produced while still paying their authors.
So, I think that this is a situation that merits careful watching. I personally am not going to register as a developer with any of these organizations until I know a lot more about them, and my donations will go to non-profit grants rather than commercially-mediated sponsorships. I'm also sponsoring net domains and offering hosting services to some free software projects to help them keep going without a budget.
See earlier discussion on this topic (Score:2)
*cough*CoSource*cough* (Score:1)
Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done (Score:1)
Sometimes your customer is a particular company and sometimes it is a target market user profile handed to you by a pointy haired marketer.
Usually after developing a peice of software you do some testing, you identify any bugs you can (a "bug" is defined as anything that differs from the original specification, whether its a feature or a nasty bug that crashes your computer) and then you hand it to your customer.
Then the customer does testing before they operationally accept your application, if they accept it -- they own it its out of your hands. They can decide not to accept it
This is how I've done it in the past. This is probably a good way to handle any custom app development.
Sorry for the crappy spelling
Re:Great!! Now we can get paid for work done (Score:1)
Re:Grants probably not deductible (Score:2)
CoSource's model looks much better (Score:3)
Here's the text from CoSource's webpage:
It Worked!
If you can see this, it means that the installation of the Apache software on this Red Hat Linux system was successful. You may now add content to this directory and replace this page.
If you are seeing this instead of the content you expected, please contact the administrator of the site involved. If you send mail about this to the authors of the Apache software or Red Hat Software, who almost certainly have nothing to do with this site, your message will be ignored.
The Apache documentation has been included with this distribution.
For documentation and information on Red Hat Linux, please visit the web site of Red Hat Software. The manual for Red Hat Linux is available here.
You are free to use the image below on an Apache-powered web server. Thanks for using Apache!
Man, that's just inspired... Oh, and then the last bit, which I really like...
You are free to use the image below on a Red Hat Linux-powered web server. Thanks for using Red Hat Linux!
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Re:Not the right way to do this (Score:1)
I don't understand what you're worried about. The reason that sourceXchange was formed seems clear: from Brian,
In other words, to fill the gaps where free software doesn't work very well.
And it wont work if everybody isn't happy. If the sponsor, or the developer, or the peers don't like the situation, they can just say, "later dude!" and leave. Too many people leave, word gets around, and no more sourceXchange.