Με αφορμή τις πρόσφατες σκέψεις του Mark Shuttleworth.

16 Σεπτεμβρίου, 2010 (21:19) | Υλικό | By: chomwitt

Some thoughts of mine having as a stimuli latest’s Mark Shuttleworth  article : “

“Reflections on Ubuntu, Canonical and the march to free software adoption.”

I Recognize Ubuntu contributions, but i think the point not touched by Shuttleworth is the problem of monetary returns distribution in that ecosystem. Take a look at Flattr..
Debian community is starting to embrace it..Why?

The core issue that put negative sentiments towards ubuntu (in my opinion)  is not necessarily code distribution but that ubuntu is part of the businness side of foss ecosystem that tries or achieves to monetize the foss ecosystem’s efforts.

But who decides how that will be distributed? For now the answer is “that who gets the money!’(as Mark says above “Beyond my own personal time, I also support various projects through funding.’). Well,… thats doesnt sound very democratic. Is short of like giving tax collectors the power to spent the tax income at will!.Is that money ubuntu’s people money?  Is economically sound to make such a claim?  Of course a part is , but i think a significant part isnot.

I think a first solution to that problem is a flattr like system embedded in ubuntu. Analogous to use of packages a part of a foss monetizer entity should be distributed back to the developers. Such a structure would be a good base to alleviate the economical core problem. Although i would understand if someone said to me that it’s really hard for the moment to achieve even the current monetary returns so that issue must be postponed for a more mature and stable monetaty future. But from another optic that issue deserves more current attention since its in a sense part of the foss’s community architecture.

Also it would be interesting to learn how ubuntu currently makes donations. For example, does gnu,kde,gnome get the biggest donations due to their core position (acknoledged by mark) or is there another thinking for donations . For example:(“Putting money into free software needs to meet a key test: could that money achieve a better outcome for more people if it were directed elsewhere?’). I understand that monetary issues could create friction in an ecosystem but sooner or later must be faced.
For example wikipedia foundation has an annually report for public. Does ubuntu has one? (i havent search it thoroughly , i just ask  :-) )

I attach two links to a response to my comment , and a comment in another article in linux journal about the same subject.

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/517#comment-334029

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/shuttleworth-doth-protest-too-much-methinks#comment-355973

So  its ok to make money on foss (thats given and justified) , and  you can make money however you want leveraging foss ecosystems , its in comply with foss licenses, but that “however” can be categorized in a spectrum from leeching to  doner. with contibuting as much as you take being in the middle of that spectrum.

Write a comment