Crowd fund open source software.

[Petah]

Check out this new crowd funding site for open source software.

https://www.catincan.com/

If you guys put some Spring projects on it I will throw a few bucks your way.

[gajop]

what's new with that site?

[Petah]

New as in just started up.

Other than that is pretty same old crowd funding. But leans towards suggesting a feature for a FOSS project. And if accepted by a developer, and it hits its funding, the developer basically get the money to implement the feature.

Say for example I suggest having spherical maps in Spring. Name your price to implement it.

[SinbadEV]

Is it bounty style (such that the dev get's the money pledged if the thing is done) or more like Kickstarter where the dev get's money up front and there is no promise of fulfillment if he fails?

Also: Imperial Winter

[Tim Blokdijk]

The only fees charged by Catincan are 10% of the total feature funding amount after the full funding amount has been reached.

Donating to people (Licho) directly would remove this overhead. And he is working on a project to do more with the donation system.

I support the attempts to increase funding in open source projects. It's also important for Spring. So this Catincan thing is a good thing in general.

I would like to talk and read about people's idea's for an expanded donation system for Spring. What wouldn’t work? What would work? What would be fun motivators to get people to donate? What would put people off?

[Kloot]

Say for example I suggest having spherical maps in Spring. Name your price to implement it.

$100K USD all upfront for a year's worth of fulltime work, better break into that savings account nao


Big Bounties have Big Issues, and this is a nice example to show them.

How do you know I haven't artificially inflated that amount?
How do you know a feature represents the amount of work I say it does?
How do you know I am even capable of doing the work?
How do you determine to pull the funding plug should progress on a feature stall at any point?
How do you judge whether there has even been real any progress on a day-to-day basis?
How do you decide who gets the benefit of the doubt and the eventual contract if another developer claims he can implement it for half the price and twice the quality?

Do you really think the big features that "everyone" wants can be funded this way when people realize they have to pay someone (who can disappear at any time for any reason) an actual real-world salary? Do you feel you can get 2000 players to contribute 50 dollars each to a project they might drop and forget about when the next commercial title with AAA graphics is released and draws them away?

My advice is to start small, maybe first draw up a list of features / bugfixes that you expect can realistically be handled by one developer and let the community prioritize them, then see if you can convince anyone to pledge to the top-N items. That would be a much better catalyst than if we just started throwing stuff onto catcan.

[SinbadEV]

What would be interesting to me would be to see a full time project manager/programmer/developer brought into an open source environment for a year rather than a particular feature... you'd still need some way to keep them on task and accountable though.

[Petah]

Is it bounty style, or more like Kickstarter

Its like Kickstarter.

Donating to people (Licho) directly...

But that doesn't mean Licho is developing the features people want developed.

$100K USD and stuff

It was just an example, doesn't have to be something so hard. Could just be like a unit model. Or a map remake etc.

I will pledge if you make 1 unit for BAR.

What would be interesting to me would be to see a full time project manager/programmer/developer brought into an open source environment

Where I work we develop open source (web stuff, not that fancy C stuff).

[smoth]

hey, I'll happily take donations for doing maps. don't get mad if I spend it on plamo or just give it back to the spring server >:3

*edit because my joke is not obvious*
or you could skip the middle man and just donate to the server >:D

[varikonniemi]

Is it bounty style, or more like Kickstarter

Its like Kickstarter.

I think this is bad. It opens up the potential of being scammed of the money you invest.

What could be easier and more clear than receiving the pledge once the criteria defined are met?

[catincan]

Hey everyone,

I'm James from Catincan. Was directed to this conversation and just wanted to clarify a few things.

And if accepted by a developer

Developers are 100% in control of what features get put up for funding. We think this is the best way to make sure a dev is ready to take on implementation.

How do you know I am even capable of doing the work?

Only existing open source projects & their existing developers can put features up for funding. These are the people who know their project better than anyone else and are best equipped to implement features.

It opens up the potential of being scammed of the money you invest.

This is something we've thought a lot about. It's certainly possible that a developer would have an existing open source project that their reputation is attached to, work for nothing on it as a labor of love and then suddenly solicit funding for a feature they won't/can't implement and steal from the users they have been supporting. But, it's definitely less likely this will occur compared to other crowdfunding platforms where anyone, without any proven ability, can create a project and gain backers with a slick 2 minute video.

Last - regarding donations: It's fairly difficult to sustain and grow a project on donations. If there are going to be Open Source competitors to proprietary/closed systems, users will have to contribute but they deserve to get a better, more refined product as a result. Our concept to achieve this is to align features with funding.

Hope you guys will give it a shot & continue to support Open Source!

[SinbadEV]

Nice answers!

I wonder if we would start hurting feelings if we tried to figure out which of our contributors are "real" developers (probably just allow all committers or some such).

So, any Devs between jobs and have features they could implement if they had the money to buy the time?

[Tim Blokdijk]

I wonder if we would start hurting feelings if we tried to figure out which of our contributors are "real" developers (probably just allow all committers or some such).

That's a can of worms I have been thinking about too. A possible solution for this would be something like a 'web of trust' where existing developers vet other developers. That way content developers that do not leave a big trail of commits in vcs systems can also be included. I don't know how catincan does this but it's certainly possible for Spring to create a web of trust.

Donating to people (Licho) directly...

But that doesn't mean Licho is developing the features people want developed.

And

What would be interesting to me would be to see a full time project manager/programmer/developer brought into an open source environment for a year rather than a particular feature... you'd still need some way to keep them on task and accountable though.

We will not receive enough donations to really "hire" a dev. Any funding that will be donated would be to encourage the dev to actually do what they want to do.
An extended donation system would have to be based on developers stating what they like to do and people donating to it (or not).
Not that it would be a bad thing, Blender has full time developers, that works. You need some real sustained revenue to pull it off. Having full time developers allowed Blender to close the gap with commercial 3D software.

hey, I'll happily take donations for doing maps.

Great. It's good to know you would like to. I do hope that we get to a point where you can actually take donations. All we need then is people that will actually donate..

I would also like to know if there are developers (or others) that object to an expanded donation system? There’s potential for good intentions being misunderstood when you start rearranging the paper money in the cash register. If we would have controversy I would rather have it now when things can be changed without much fuss. You don't want to take down an new system days after you announce it because of miscommunication and mistrust.

And just to be clear, Licho is doing all the coding. All I'm doing here is making sure his work can land in a soft cushion of project wide understanding and love. Worthy of a massive influx of spare change.

What could be easier and more clear than receiving the pledge once the criteria defined are met?

GSoC has this, I don't think it would work for us. Who is going to decide that the criteria are met? Who is going to mediate if people disagree? It's ultimately a trust issue. An honour system where previous contributions show a real commitment would be more trustworthy imo.

Last - regarding donations: It's fairly difficult to sustain and grow a project on donations. If there are going to be Open Source competitors to proprietary/closed systems, users will have to contribute but they deserve to get a better, more refined product as a result. Our concept to achieve this is to align features with funding.

Hope you guys will give it a shot & continue to support Open Source!

Hello James, I agree with you on the need to grow and sustain open source projects with some (limited) funding. Spring is already in the processes to develop an internal contribution system, expanding the existing donation system, so I don't think we are going to use catincan. But I do like to give a suggestion.. allow people to do small projects with no overhead costs. As in, the first $100 have 0% overhead, from $100 to $500 5% and everything above $500 is 10%. That way small open source projects can "grow" into it.