| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Azimoth
n00b
Joined: 24 Jul 2016
Posts: 34
|
 Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 5:18 pm Post subject: Portage with --donate flag? (Inspired by Elementary OS) |
 |
|
Hi everyone,
I just learned about the pay-what-you-want option of the AppCenter in Elementary OS (using Stripe Connect).
Since free software developers depend on donations, I like the idea to make donating as easy as possible.
So I wondered:
Has the idea come up to include something like that in Portage?
I'm not a programmer nor a business guy, so I cannot think of all pitfalls involved here, but I thought of something like:
- A (encrypted) config file for credit card and currency information (so it's not necessary to enter everything manually every time)
- A new flag for emerge, such as "--donate=<amount_in_currency>" (default to no donation)
(- some eselect-like dialogue, in case multiple packages are about to be installed, to select every package that should receive a donation)
- Some kind of security check in case --donate= is used (CVV?)
Elementary OS apparently splits the donation 70/30, so 70% of the donation for the developer 30% to cover the costs (in our case... Stripe? Gentoo Foundation?).
So, what do you think about this?
Has anyone already come up with a (better?) solution to this "problem"?
Last edited by Azimoth on Mon May 22, 2017 7:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zucca
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 3774
Location: Rasi, Finland
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's a novel idea, but may be hard to implement becuase of possible bureaucracy involved.
_________________
..: Zucca :..
| My gentoo installs: | init=/sbin/openrc-init
-systemd -logind -elogind seatd |
| Quote: | | I am NaN! I am a man! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Section_8
l33t
Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 627
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How would portage figure out how to make the donation to each of the 1000's of packages in the tree? It seems like some dev would have to manually configure this for each package in the tree, which would be a huge job. How does Elementary OS handle that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azimoth
n00b
Joined: 24 Jul 2016
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
How would portage figure out how to make the donation to each of the 1000's of packages in the tree? [...] How does Elementary OS handle that?
|
It definitely means a lot of work, but I think it may eventually pay off, as it potentially boosts the whole free software ecosystem.
According to their information on GitHub you "At any time, [...] can select the '$' icon in your dashboard to link your Stripe account and enable payments for your app in AppCenter.".
This sounds to me like there is literally a link to the account, and everything else is done through a GUI (wrapped browser?)
I found this documentation on how Stripe is integrated in websites, but they also claim that
| Quote: | We have Checkout integration guides for several platforms and languages to get you up and running as quickly as possible:
Sinatra
Rails
Flask
Express
ASP.NET
PHP
|
I thought, one could include the link or the information necessary for the developer to receive a donation into the ebuild file, as another optional section maybe?
To be honest, Stripe seems to be aiming at GUI solutions, but why shouldn't it be possible to to reduce the whole process to a CLI version?
Regarding the secure storage of payment information apparently the Elementary OS folks chose to use Stripe's customer feature of their API
Has anyone any experience regarding stripe or is better than me at grasping how the stripe API works/could be used? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 12:24 pm Post subject: Re: Portage with --donate flag? (Inspired by Elementary OS) |
|
|
| Azimoth wrote: | | Has anyone already come up with a (better?) solution to this "problem"? |
F-Droid puts URLs to donation pages or Bitcoin addresses in the package metadata. No PCI compliance issues involved and it doesn't come across as demanding or Mac-cy like eOS does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. T.
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Posts: 477
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| azimoth wrote: | | Since free software developers depend on donations... |
I disagree with you because free softwares may be made by volonteers. Moreover, how to set prices?
A lot of people can donate a few money for the software and the final price of the software can be very high.
Or in other words, we can make a software and earn more money than the real value of the software. This is unfair.
Edition: Adding this type of functionality may increase the vulnerability of the operating system. Crackers use softwares to do their crimes, aren't they?
In other words, by playing with fire we end up burning ourself.
Last edited by Mr. T. on Tue May 23, 2017 2:15 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10676
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moved from Portage & Programming to Gentoo Chat. Not a support request, but a feature proposal, so it fits better here.
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So anyone compromising a gentoo won't made it a bot but an auto account sucker?
The foundation is protecting gentoo, so the foundation need the money, devs are volunteers that comes and go, but gentoo will remain as long as the foundation is there to keep it.
At worst, anyone would agree neddy has earn a free trip to vegas no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Azimoth ...
there are so many reasons why such a scheme should be considered inadvisable, not least of which is the knock on effect of financialising (for want of a better word) something which is, and should be, focused purely on engineering. There is already far too much of this in the form of economic pressures (on all parties, developers, and users, alike) to forge a career (or the next best thing, financial reward) from social labour (and before I'm accused of "socialism", or what-have-you, this social labour is economically productive, only it tends to circulate more rapidly, more widely, and is ... or perhaps was ... less prone to capture).
Consider also that as this schema involves financially rewarding contributors, why shouldn't I get sponsorship for the labour I provide here? I'm sure we could replicate the sort of rewards you receive on youtube for plugging products, or services, on your channel (or in this case, posts) ... and why not?
I could go on, so while I agree that all labour should see the rewards of that labour, either in the form of the product, or in sweat equity (which sadly isn't the case under the economic model provided by "free/open software") there are other considerations involved, such as the kinds of social arrangements our labour engenders, and what level of control we exert over them.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephg
l33t
Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 783
Location: usually offline
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
foss has been contributed to over the past many decades by many known & unknown faces. any proposed donations are claimed by current (code repository) maintainers, ignoring everyone else. i'm not sure whether this is fair or equitable.
the next proposal rounding the same corner might be adding google ads to portage/ebuilds? easy money huh :/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azimoth
n00b
Joined: 24 Jul 2016
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ant P. wrote: | | F-Droid puts URLs to donation pages or Bitcoin addresses in the package metadata. |
I like that idea. Sounds like the sweet spot of comfort and security.
So maybe just output donation URLs of all merged packages after the installation if the "--donate" flag is set?
| josephg wrote: | | the next proposal rounding the same corner might be adding google ads to portage/ebuilds? easy money huh :/ |
This is something completely different as it would FORCE ads on you, whereas a donation is something you give voluntarily. (Which is why I would not show the donation URLs mentioned above by default)
------ lengthy replies to other posts ------
| helecho wrote: | | we can make a software and earn more money than the real value of the software. This is unfair. |
Of course "depend" was a little exaggerated. My bad. But it's not about PRICES, it's about DONATIONS and to make donating as easy as possible.
If the software in question is important enough for many people to donate, this is a democratically set value. This is not strictly fair (especially because it may depend on other packages, which don't get as many donations), but unless there's a divine entity revealing everything's true value, this is the best way I can think of...
(If the maintainer receiving the donations is a good guy, he should pass on an adequate amount of the donations to his dependencies... that would be fair)
| helecho wrote: | Edition: Adding this type of functionality may increase the vulnerability of the operating system. Crackers use softwares to do their crimes, aren't they?
In other words, by playing with fire we end up burning ourself.[/i] |
well, with the way proposed by Ant P. this would not be a problem.
| khayyam wrote: |
There is already far too much of this in the form of economic pressures (on all parties, developers, and users, alike) to forge a career (or the next best thing, financial reward) [...].
|
I don't see how this would ADD economic pressure on any party. I'd rather expect it to lower the pressure...
If I'm not mistaken, your point in your post is that people might start projects, because they want to make a fortune on donations and might drop it just as quickly when their expectations are not met...? So people would start forking everything like hell to grab donations?
(Correct me, if I'm wrong)
The thing is:
I'm not inventing donations here. You can already donate as much as you want today. Everything is already in place.
All I'm proposing is a more comfortable way to do it.
I don't think an option like this in Portage would shift the FOSS economy (I would've never expected to combine these words) that much, so all of a sudden hell breaks loose...
Of course, what people here in the forum do to help users has a value and if the forum would collect donations and distribute them in some fair way among the people adding value to the froum: This would be great.
But everything you sarcastically propose has the same flaw: It's basically ads, forced on the user. It is not voluntary. This is where I would draw the line.
... why would you be accused of "socialism"?
| josephg wrote: | | any proposed donations are claimed by current (code repository) maintainers, ignoring everyone else. |
But isn't this just the way it is right now, too, when you decide to donate to a project?
Your money will never reach everyone, who contributed to it, but it may help to keep the project alive. If there's some egomaniac in control, whom you dislike for how things are handled in the project, then you're still free to NOT donate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | There is already far too much of this in the form of economic pressures (on all parties, developers, and users, alike) to forge a career (or the next best thing, financial reward) [...].
|
| Azimoth wrote: | | I don't see how this would ADD economic pressure on any party. I'd rather expect it to lower the pressure... |
Azimoth ... you misunderstand, I didn't say "add", I said, "already far too much", and you snipped the qualifier "financial reward [...] from social labour". What I mean is, the labour we contribute is more often than not unpaid, yet we all have mouths to feed, bills to pay, etc, etc. Labour is scarce (meaning we are required to do other things to meet our needs) and that constitutes an "economic pressure". The social labour aspect is of this is complex, but we might say that this labour is provided because it meets certain social, rather than economic, needs, and we need to be careful not to replace the "kinds of social arrangements our labour engenders ... and what level of control we exert over them" with purely economic rewards (again, to satisfy those "economic pressures"). Keep in mind that this labour is monetised, and that if we are not careful we will become subject to it (and so lessen our ability to act freely). If all this labour was quantised then no party could afford to pay for it, and that is both our weakness and strength, because if captured by purely economic forces we are subject to it, whereas that labour can be directed toward things we can exert control over (personal liberties, etc, etc). That of course is a complex proposition as it involves the assertion of everyone's right to do as they please (including monetising their labour), but it also involves (positive and negative) reciprocity (as anyone can opt out should the implicit agreement to cooperate be working against their self-interest).
| Azimoth wrote: | If I'm not mistaken, your point in your post is that people might start projects, because they want to make a fortune on donations and might drop it just as quickly when their expectations are not met...? So people would start forking everything like hell to grab donations?
(Correct me, if I'm wrong) |
OK ;) ... the point was that you might be more inclined to monetise should I be doing the same. This changes the dynamic of of our interaction, because we become more inclined to make decisions based on economic considerations (as opposed to technical, social, and other, considerations ... again the "kinds of social arrangements our labour engenders, and what level of control we exert over them"). I probably need to be clear here: economic considerations are equally valid (we all need to eat, find shelter, etc), however within this milieu we function mostly on the exchange of social goods (knowledge, experience, etc) and are willing to give up some of the economic power that these goods involve for other benefits (acquiring knowledge, experience). These inevitably overlap, but again, they operate in terms of reciprocity, because no one (of us) has the power to compel ("economic pressure") others to do their bidding.
| Azimoth wrote: | The thing is: I'm not inventing donations here. You can already donate as much as you want today. Everything is already in place. All I'm proposing is a more comfortable way to do it.
I don't think an option like this in Portage would shift the FOSS economy (I would've never expected to combine these words) that much, so all of a sudden hell breaks loose... |
No, but as I said there are "a number of reasons" why this might be inadvisable, and I provided only one. I personally would find it troubling that 'commands' would include a '--donate' switch, if this is 'technically' acceptable why not 'ping -c 10 --donate=1c', or 'ls --donate=1c', along with 'emerge --donate'? I'm not saying this is setting a precedent, I'm saying that they are not 'technical' considerations, and so undesirable for that reason. If people want to donate then there is nothing stopping them do so, but if we start including this as "a more comfortable way to do it" then I think you have to consider what is being brought in, and how this effects the mindspace in which the thing operates.
| Azimoth wrote: | | Of course, what people here in the forum do to help users has a value and if the forum would collect donations and distribute them in some fair way among the people adding value to the froum: This would be great. But everything you sarcastically propose has the same flaw: It's basically ads, forced on the user. It is not voluntary. This is where I would draw the line. |
It wasn't being "sarcastic", it was supplied to illustrate the point that if someone is monetising then this is an incentive for others to do the same ... and what better way than, the all too common, sponsorship. Also, consider this, how do you know that I'm not already in the pay of some agency to promote their interests, and to diminish the interests of their competitors? The point is you don't ... I may already be crossing certain "lines". The only thing that can prevent such surreptitious advertising is an independent, and critical, community, which isn't subject to economic pressures ... and this is why keeping economic considerations at bay is so important.
| Azimoth wrote: | | ... why would you be accused of "socialism"? |
... because the moment you use terms such as "social", or "labour", you are instantly cast as being of a marxist bent ... which I'm not.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azimoth
n00b
Joined: 24 Jul 2016
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2017 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll try to break your post down in what I think your message is... 
| khayyam wrote: |
the labour we contribute is more often than not unpaid, yet we all have mouths to feed, bills to pay, etc, etc. Labour is scarce (meaning we are required to do other things to meet our needs) and that constitutes an "economic pressure".
|
This is the world we live in...
| khayyam wrote: |
we might say that this labour is provided because it meets certain social, rather than economic, needs, and we need to be careful not to replace the "kinds of social arrangements our labour engenders ... and what level of control we exert over them" with purely economic rewards (again, to satisfy those "economic pressures").
|
In your opinion, contribution to FOSS should be done out of an intrinsic need, so the individual freedom and independence is ensured...?
Of course, this would be the ideal scenario, yet doing the "right thing" for the "wrong reasons" would be ok for me...
| khayyam wrote: |
If all this labour was quantised then no party could afford to pay for it, and that is both our weakness and strength, because if captured by purely economic forces we are subject to it, whereas that labour can be directed toward things we can exert control over (personal liberties, etc, etc).
|
So, by providing FOSS that is on par with or even better than proprietary software, people have a chance to evade the economic pressure and econonmic forces, because they don't depend on proprietary solutions and FOSS cannot be "taken over" by any company?
And wouldn't more people coding for FOSS projects increase the personal freedom for everyone?
| khayyam wrote: |
the point was that you might be more inclined to monetise should I be doing the same. This changes the dynamic of of our interaction, because we become more inclined to make decisions based on economic considerations (as opposed to technical, social, and other, considerations ... again the "kinds of social arrangements our labour engenders, and what level of control we exert over them").
|
Have a little faith in humans. As people that decided to code for FOSS obviously already chose to give their social needs (as you called it) priority over their economic needs, I would be surprised if a significant number of people became "corrupted" through donations.
In fact I believe any form of acknowledgement increases the determination to continue this path...
| khayyam wrote: |
I personally would find it troubling that 'commands' would include a '--donate' switch, if this is 'technically' acceptable why not 'ping -c 10 --donate=1c', or 'ls --donate=1c', along with 'emerge --donate'?
|
As long as this command remains completely optional I don't label it "wrong". It shows an undesirable mindset of the dev, yet the program still offers the full functionality, so my freedom is not restricted.
In fact you'd be free to fork it and remove all the donation related code, if it bothers you enough...
| khayyam wrote: |
Also, consider this, how do you know that I'm not already in the pay of some agency to promote their interests, and to diminish the interests of their competitors? The point is you don't ... I may already be crossing certain "lines". The only thing that can prevent such surreptitious advertising is an independent, and critical, community, which isn't subject to economic pressures ... and this is why keeping economic considerations at bay is so important.
|
Tough one. Since I cannot know your true intentions, the best I can do is to look at whether you restrict my freedom, if I chose to use your program (or whatever you offer to me). Of course you might influence my decisions, but there's nothing that doesn't have the potential to do that. It's up to me, to be aware of this and to keep thinking for myself.
As you wrote above, everybody is subject to economic pressures, so the community may be critical and to a certain degree independent, yet never free from economic pressures (granted, there may be a few, who are rich enough for several lifetimes in luxury).
I fail to see, how an as easy as possible way to donate would change anything about this...
| khayyam wrote: |
... because the moment you use terms such as "social", or "labour", you are instantly cast as being of a marxist bent ... which I'm not.
|
I must admit I was a little surprised this thread went into a direction that philosophical/economical and I did not read enough about Marx to have an educated opinion on this matter. As little as I know, I still feel like those communists had some ideas worth thinking about, so I'm not going to "accuse" anyone...
What I don't get is why everything you criticize should only apply to a "--donate" flag in Portage, yet not to donations in general.
Doesn't the simple existence of the option to donate to FOSS projects already set everything you explained as bad consequences from my proposition in motion?
On the other hand, let's assume for a moment I was the next Alan Turing (which I'm not, surprise), yet unfortunately was born in humble circumstances.
Let's further assume, I wrote a piece of software that drastically improves everyones life and being a good guy, I gave it away under the GPL.
If I simply faced too much pressure from economic needs and there were no/too little donations, I'd have to stop coding GPL software, all the benefits I could've brought in from that point on would be lost for the FOSS community.
Of course many other people may carry on from here, yet they would not excel the way I would've.
If my brilliant software would drastically improve everyones life and I received enough donations to keep going, I might bring FOSS to a whole new level.
What would your solution look like, to make as sure as possible that as many Alan Turings as possible can live up to their true potential?
(If I understand you correctly, being hired by a company or government would not be an option, as it would be completely due to economic needs...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Azimoth wrote: | | I'll try to break your post down in what I think your message is... ;) |
Azimoth ... that might not be such a good idea, you will likely end up reframing the argument in ways that meet your own conception, and/or digress into other (perhaps related) spheres. I think you've done both (to some degree) and though that can be expected (again, to some degree), I'm worried that I may need to add too much to the too much I've already said ... and so further complicate things.
| khayyam wrote: | | the labour we contribute is more often than not unpaid, yet we all have mouths to feed, bills to pay, etc, etc. Labour is scarce (meaning we are required to do other things to meet our needs) and that constitutes an "economic pressure". |
| Azimoth wrote: | | This is the world we live in... |
Sorry, but that is not a counter argument, what I was trying to articulate is that such "pressures" play into, and so effect, "social arrangements", we may be under pressure to assure our livelihood, but we can, simultaneously, open up other ways of doing things that are outside of, or tangential to, those pressures.
| khayyam wrote: | | we might say that this labour is provided because it meets certain social, rather than economic, needs, and we need to be careful not to replace the "kinds of social arrangements our labour engenders ... and what level of control we exert over them" with purely economic rewards (again, to satisfy those "economic pressures"). |
| Azimoth wrote: | | In your opinion, contribution to FOSS should be done out of an intrinsic need, so the individual freedom and independence is ensured...? Of course, this would be the ideal scenario, yet doing the "right thing" for the "wrong reasons" would be ok for me... |
No, because what is involved is how, or where, our mutual needs meet, and interact, nothing (ie, "need") is governing what that is, or how our respective freedoms relate, or impinge, on each other. In short, there are no guarantees that should I do x,y,z you will reciprocate and act in a way beneficial to me, however, each party has some level of control over how we reciprocate ... and our being able to do so is what constitutes "independence". In the schema I provided above I was contrasting this independence with our cashing in this "arrangement" to satisfy purely economic needs, and the dangers involved in doing so (because if answering to necessity you are operating with less independence). On that point I think you need to tie the various threads of my argument together, once some party (ie, redhat) is able to capture the labour and monetise it, then this changes the nature of the arrangements involved, they acquire power (to direct things toward whatever they deem beneficial to their shareholders) and so questions of reciprocity (between numerous parties) becomes less and less the governing factor.
| khayyam wrote: | | If all this labour was quantised then no party could afford to pay for it, and that is both our weakness and strength, because if captured by purely economic forces we are subject to it, whereas that labour can be directed toward things we can exert control over (personal liberties, etc, etc). |
| Azimoth wrote: | | So, by providing FOSS that is on par with or even better than proprietary software, people have a chance to evade the economic pressure and econonmic forces, because they don't depend on proprietary solutions and FOSS cannot be "taken over" by any company? And wouldn't more people coding for FOSS projects increase the personal freedom for everyone? |
I'm suspicious of the claims made by FOSS, as I see it as having a flawed definition of "freedom" (ie, freedom is considered somehow unrelated to the economic condition of receiving the full product of labour .. it is a view of freedom separated from the power to exercise that freedom). This view has a long history, and in its current incarnation consists of appropriating goods from producers who are then excluded from receiving the product of their labour (even if the in form of sweat equity), those who benefit from this arrangement can do so because the only factor that is considered is the abstract concept "freedom", and not the concrete products (goods, equity, etc) that instantiates, or makes possible, that freedom. Anyhow, what I'm pointing to above is that this labour can be directed in various ways, ie, filling the pockets of redhat and stockholders, or directed toward whatever ends you and I (and all other parties involved) find most conducive to our respective wants, needs, etc ... this is what I mean by "social arrangements".
| khayyam wrote: | | the point was that you might be more inclined to monetise should I be doing the same. This changes the dynamic of of our interaction, because we become more inclined to make decisions based on economic considerations (as opposed to technical, social, and other, considerations ... again the "kinds of social arrangements our labour engenders, and what level of control we exert over them"). |
| Azimoth wrote: | | Have a little faith in humans. As people that decided to code for FOSS obviously already chose to give their social needs (as you called it) priority over their economic needs, I would be surprised if a significant number of people became "corrupted" through donations. In fact I believe any form of acknowledgement increases the determination to continue this path... |
I have what I would consider a completely amoral evaluation of this human, and consider any attempt to attribute it moral attributes (that I should take "faith" in) as unsustainable. As for your counter, I'm not sure they do, the assumption is that people (myself included) are self-determining, and/or have the power to act completely outside of the social, political, cultural, economic, etc, worlds they operate in. This is far from being the case, most people expend most of their energies in pursuit of basic economic security (or, in may cases, subsistence), this is far from the sort of independence I envisage as warranting the term "freedom", even those who acquire some level of economic independence have to be on their guard that they don't loose it, and so be subject to the control of those similarly occupied, or worse fortuna.
| khayyam wrote: | | I personally would find it troubling that 'commands' would include a '--donate' switch, if this is 'technically' acceptable why not 'ping -c 10 --donate=1c', or 'ls --donate=1c', along with 'emerge --donate'? |
| Azimoth wrote: | | As long as this command remains completely optional I don't label it "wrong". It shows an undesirable mindset of the dev, yet the program still offers the full functionality, so my freedom is not restricted. In fact you'd be free to fork it and remove all the donation related code, if it bothers you enough... |
You're not answering to the point I made subsequent to that (selective) quote, in what way would the inclusion/exclusion be a "'technical' consideration"?
| khayyam wrote: | Also, consider this, how do you know that I'm not already in the pay of some agency to promote their interests, and to diminish the interests of their competitors? The point is you don't ... I may already be crossing certain "lines". The only thing that can prevent such surreptitious advertising is an independent, and critical, community, which isn't subject to economic pressures ... and this is why keeping economic considerations at bay is so important.
|
| Azimoth wrote: | | Tough one. Since I cannot know your true intentions, the best I can do is to look at whether you restrict my freedom, if I chose to use your program (or whatever you offer to me). Of course you might influence my decisions, but there's nothing that doesn't have the potential to do that. It's up to me, to be aware of this and to keep thinking for myself. As you wrote above, everybody is subject to economic pressures, so the community may be critical and to a certain degree independent, yet never free from economic pressures (granted, there may be a few, who are rich enough for several lifetimes in luxury). I fail to see, how an as easy as possible way to donate would change anything about this... |
You seem to be mixing up a number of things there, the reason I asked the above was that you had set a "line" that I was showing might easily be subverted, I did this as you seemed to be taking it for granted that "ads" follow some formula, whereas, as far as I'm concerned, listening to Eben Moglen (then general counsel of the FSF) make absurd theatre of Kant's was ist Aufklärung? is also in that same category.
| khayyam wrote: | | ... because the moment you use terms such as "social", or "labour", you are instantly cast as being of a marxist bent ... which I'm not. |
| Azimoth wrote: | | I must admit I was a little surprised this thread went into a direction that philosophical/economical and I did not read enough about Marx to have an educated opinion on this matter. As little as I know, I still feel like those communists had some ideas worth thinking about, so I'm not going to "accuse" anyone... |
That isn't what I was saying, I was merely pointing out that when you use such terms that is generally how people take you to be. As for what "those communists" thought then we need to define our terms so we are absolutely clear what it is we are talking about: "communism is a classless society, without markets" (Marx), besides the inherent absurdity involved in both those conditions, we need to keep in mind that Marx was someone who's intellectual dishonesty, his ability to assimilate every concept he encountered (which would later be claimed by Engels as "Marx"), and the complete lack of clarity with regard to what is being elucidated, leaves us (or rather, his inheritors) with something that might best be thought of as an empty box that could be filled with whatever alchemical composition we might be inclined to fancy, and still have it amount to the same thing. What's more, given our capacity for seeing pattern in everything, we might be inclined to take this as something meaningful, philosophic even, and this is where "those communists" come in, there is something that can be extracted (even if only negatively) whereas you might as well look to a Ouija board for the same.
| Azimoth wrote: | | What I don't get is why everything you criticize should only apply to a "--donate" flag in Portage, yet not to donations in general. Doesn't the simple existence of the option to donate to FOSS projects already set everything you explained as bad consequences from my proposition in motion? |
Again, you need to take what I'd written as an interconnected series of ideas/thoughts, and connect the dots. The notion of donations, per se isn't a problem, and as I said, the ability to do so already exists. The problem I have is that the idea of a command line switch is inserting itself into something which is, and should remain, technical.
| Azimoth wrote: | | On the other hand, let's assume for a moment I was the next Alan Turing (which I'm not, surprise), yet unfortunately was born in humble circumstances. Let's further assume, I wrote a piece of software that drastically improves everyone's life and being a good guy, I gave it away under the GPL. If I simply faced too much pressure from economic needs and there were no/too little donations, I'd have to stop coding GPL software, all the benefits I could've brought in from that point on would be lost for the FOSS community. Of course many other people may carry on from here, yet they would not excel the way I would've. If my brilliant software would drastically improve everyones life and I received enough donations to keep going, I might bring FOSS to a whole new level. What would your solution look like, to make as sure as possible that as many Alan Turings as possible can live up to their true potential? |
None of which has any baring on the addition of a command line switch ...
| Azimoth wrote: | | (If I understand you correctly, being hired by a company or government would not be an option, as it would be completely due to economic needs...) |
You are making an either/or proposition of something which was about "social arrangements". If you think our culture can, or will, withstand those social arrangements being monetised then I think you are only looking at the labour/activity involved as providing respite for economic need ... when they serve, and act on, levels which are concerned far less with that condition (again, we are negotiating our respective wants, needs, etc, not simply trading softwares, or what-have-you).
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caveman69
n00b
Joined: 11 Jul 2017
Posts: 1
Location: /dev/cave0
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry I do not possess the intellect to make such high level logical arguments but I do like the idea of monetizing feature built into portage, support for crypto currencies like Bitcoin would be a plus.
Gentoo is dying whether we would like to admit it or not, that's what I have also been hearing in other places and anything that can help motivate the devs, volunteers or the foundation to --keep-going would be a good thing in my opinion. How exactly to distribute the donations or who it should go to is a different question that needs to be thought in depth and perhaps @khayyam can help with that  .
I personally am considering donating part of my savings to Gentoo foundation and a few other Opensource projects, I'm not rich but the knowledge I've gained from using Gentoo and the benefit of Opensource software & Gnu/Linux is probably the only reason I'm still using a computer now a days; otherwise I would have abandoned everything and gone back to my cave.
I love this community, a lot of really hard working volunteers, moderators, devs etc. working selflessly to keep things alive and I understand that not everyone is financially well off. It doesn't hurt in my opinion for them to be compensated in some way.
I don't know what @khayyam does for a living, but he and a few other volunteers have always helped me out in my time of need. I can't thank them enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
