1. Funding GPL projects or funding the GPL?
In a recent discussion about developers running out of money (arch,
perl) and what can we do for helping them I can up with an idea. I'd
like to share it with anyone in the list even though it'll probably be
disregarded or flamed. The Kernel may well be nicely funded, because of
companies supported. But that's not always the case, and the schema just
fails in a lot of key areas of OSS.
Why post it here then? Because for it to work it must be supported by
at least some of the grand developements of OSS.
Here's the actual idea, which actually is a slashdot repost
Re:Isn't dual-licensing with the GPL perfect for t (Score:2)
(User #525414 Info | http://www.arrancar.com/)
Yes, but that underfunds the projects. You can see this clearly when
Microsoft can sell lots of buggy software and of the best OSS developers
can't earn a decent salary.
I'd love to see a new license, that could be called the fGPL. That would
be the "Funded GPL". To be able to use fGPLd programs you'll HAVE to
contribute some small amount of money to the fGPL foundation. You'll not
be required to pay for any individual fGPL software, just a plain simple
yearly $10 or $20 charge. And you will be able to distribute exactly
where that money goes, among all the different projects. If you can't
pay $20 a year it will be no problem, just a bit penalty: all fGPL
software would be free as in beer once the year passes (old releases).
The money paid to the developers would only cover salaries and some
expenses that are needing to continue developement. So if any proyect
gets over-funded, you'll be noticed that you must reasign some of your
It'd always be free as in freedom. We only need to bring some beer for
that to happen. It'll also kill the anti OSS argument that the system is
for comunists or anti-american. I know that is FUD, but do your
representatives know that? It will also kill most of the other FUD
targeted at OSS and will also bust developement to unknown levels.
What do we need for this to happen?
To have the Linux Kernel, the Red Hat distro, mplayer, X and gcc (for
example, could be others as well) adopting the fGPL for the next
releases. After that, we'll see most every GPLd program adopting the
fGPL. After that, you'll start to see how much sense it made to pay $20
a year. And even the ones that can't pay (if any) will be able to use
the software (though 1 year old, but their hardware si severla years old
This is my opinion. I'd gladly pay the $20, as long as EVERYONE ELSE
pays their $20. That's why we don't see many donations now: because you
have this felling everyone else is just waiting for a fool like you to
contribute to project X in order to save it.
------------- end -------------
Thanks for everything and to everyone here!
pd: Please CC if you need my reply as I am not on the list
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
2. NIS for Linux?
3. Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL)
4. Network Card Configuration
5. GPL question: including a GPL program in a software package
7. offtpic: GPL driver vs. non GPL driver
8. RH 6.0 Viper V770 : Screen Resolution
9. Gnu GPL problem: License copyrighted things under GPL???
10. Using GPL'd Linux drivers with non-GPL, binary-only kernel
11. GPL libraries and commercial software
12. CVP - GPL Licensed?