I was in some open-source forums and youtube channels related to design, in the same sites I found developers saying that open source is not profitable... but then, why they did not use ads? or maybe ads are bad or dirty thing? ... just curious.
PD: remember that Flappy Bird's reported $50,000 dollars per day of advertising
Ads are bad. First and more importantly imho : It uselessly cost a lots of resources (bandwidth, local and remote computer to provide and display it). It encourages people to buy what they do not need and to live a way which cannot be sustained by our only planet Earth. Also they are often not respectful of your privacy (tracking, establishing a profile etc…).
Total money and resource cost of ads and its consequence is higher for user than just giving money directly. Imho what needs to be marketed is the project itself and its value. People pay to see someone playing on twitch without earning anything except possibly an emote and a thank you. Why people on professional would not do the same when they earn money with it ? They need to understand that it is perfectly normal to pay for something they legally do not have to.
Would rather talk about "sustainable" open source instead.
@Cyril said:
Ads are bad. First and more importantly imho : It uselessly cost a lots of resources (bandwidth, local and remote computer to provide and display it). It encourages people to buy what they do not need and to live a way which cannot be sustained by our only planet Earth. Also they are often not respectful of your privacy (tracking, establishing a profile etc…).
Total money and resource cost of ads and its consequence is higher for user than just giving money directly...
sound familiar to the Wikipedia founding case, and I have possible alternatives to fight ethically, but remember that Richard Small say that software free is for freedom.
here some solutions to ads:
+Forum might /should restrict the ads to just offer computers and courses online, with these methods google and other websites not might track you, or simply offer ethical products like System76 with some link.
+_Exist some extension browser for Firefox and Chromium that allows isolating a determinate domain called container: _https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?platform=windows&q=container
... a container extension makes that, for example, google info just can read since a google site.
+the twitch idea is new for me, I like it, maybe some developer or designer might do stream when they are working, that might be similar to an online course, sound interesting for me.
+and finally if ads can not be profitable, for example for small projects, I might suggest to find sponsor, I mean create their app, use a standard format, IFC, and might create Patreon, Kickstarter, or any crowdfunding options, for add new features.
-for another part, other models that are learned in the university, it just scares users, like the mixed licenses, this happen a lot in the electrical design software, such methods are the hell for students Dynamo runtime
... but maybe all my suggestions will be ignored, then maybe the developers should talk in their forums directly for suggestions.
@stephen_l said:
Would rather talk about "sustainable" open source instead.
Sound complicated, but I would like open-source developers to compete and fight aggressively with tooth and nail, and if they want to be ethical they could plant trees, eat vegetables, and respect others.
@jtm2020hyo I think @stephen_l is probably talking about projects that can be sustained over time, aka sustainable, but nothing to do with the environment.
I only answered both at the same time.
... but If for our radical Richard Stallman It is acceptable to share a paid direct link as ads since ubuntu to amazon without spyware, then, why not us?
...FreeCAD, Blender, KiCAD, LibreCAD, Sweet Home 3D, Radiance and others, might create an alternative option to https://www.bimobject.com/ or Autodesk Seek, together they can make a better store, not just for download 3D Models, we might offer:
technical support
technical services
development service
more custom and precast furniture for SW3D, Blender, and FC
logistic
templates
scripts
extensions
add-on than support different versions
plug-ins
Integrated circuit market for KiCAD
Lights store for Radiance
builders
designers
Steel
analysts
Online Courses
Offline Courses
Tutorials
Guides
Direct links to Amazon
Direct links to Ebay
Direct links to Alibaba
etc.
... maybe that might be sustainable for everyone.
Early days I suggested Dion to being part of our upcoming startup(s), and he decided to work as a freelancer, per hour, so I didn't accept
So, the future will show that he lost a great opportunity or not :)
@ReD_CoDE said:
...our upcoming startup(s)...
Could you tell us a little about this project?
I was planned to launch our first startup in Facility Management (FM) area but COVID-19 caused we stop for post-pandemic
Our first startup is about giving FM services to building owners, each building owner spends around $3000 per year for just building operations and there are over 500 million urban "residential" buildings worldwide
It means, a Total Addressable Market (TAM) much much bigger than Autodesk's TAM, it means $1,5 trillion worldwide per year
So, I've started to develop some new startups too for post-pandemic:
A no-code web-app to build web apps
A System Dynamics (SD) + Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) model-driven app for complex systems
A Smart-PM (Project Management) app based on combination of some modern approaches and some revolutionary ideas
Also, there're some personal experimental projects that I don't share yet
Sound like BIM, MEP, 5G, IoT and Cloud, very promising and futurist.
Hello everyone again, I found an interesting topic about old versions of our 3D software and LibreDWG.
Context:
... 2010 and was the DWG-AutoCAD era, FSF.org create an initiative called LibreDWG, which was created to read correctly a DWG file in our favorite open-source software, in such time the LibreDWG was dead because our main software denied the FSF petition to change their license since GPL2 to GPL3 or at least GPL2+, this to finally use LibreDWG because this library was licensed as GPL3.
the denial of the petition was argued than the main problem was their dependent libraries because these libraries were licensed with multiple and different types and not compatible with GPL3.
Now in 2020, I learning more open-source software I found a case where a no-GPL3 software but open source was extorting with lawyers to one developer, I can not mention names because legal issues, but this is clearly hurting indirectly to the community CAD CAE CAM open source.
this case proves Richard Stallman was right, and the way it uses just GPL3, at least in the ideal case.
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=50575
my proposal for FreeCAD pays them to change the license because now there is a new version where it is stated than FreeCAD can not change to GPL3 because of money.
actually I am trying contact with any FSF.org member to propose creating a fund for pay/buy Blender and FreeCAD, and convert them to GPL3 and finally end with the license controversies.
here my question:
if this were possible, how would it affect you as developers?
TL;DR create a fund and purchase FreeCAD and Blender for 1000 millions like when Microsoft bought to minecraft to make them profitable.
No chance to "buy" blender to change the license, as you must reach every single developper and get written consent to do so. Not to mention Ton's consent to do so will never happen.
@stephen_l I've started to check Blender resource (I'm not a programmer) to see which internal and external packages and technologies they use
So, if someone wants to buy the Blender license, it's better to start to develop a tool from scratch
Writing software from scratch based on available "update" technologies are better
Especially when in the built environment industry we want just 20% of what Blender has
@jtm2020hyo I don't quite understand, for Blender reading in the license details it states:
All the components that together make Blender are compatible under the newer GNU GPL Version 3. That is also the license to use for any distribution of Blender binaries.
So, what would the change be from your suggestion to "creating a fund for pay/buy Blender and FreeCAD, and convert them to GPL3 and finally end with the license controversies."?
In general, I want to replicate this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gnu/comments/3529yc/current_free_softwarefree_culture_related/
... reasons: for me, open source software deserves more money than their close source alternatives.
... the plan: create a crowdfounding for add native CAD/CAE/CAM functions for Blender, buy libraries for FreeCAD, or anything.
... for "buy blender or freecad" and "GPLv3 controversia" I mean: according to developers, they use multiple libraries if they wish change anything they can not because GPLv2, if well this license is useful, same license is generating a pain in the developers ass, and can be used for extorsion (I found at least a case) is buy or create since zero could be a better option. we need a crowdfounding for our developers because they are not living just with air, and this is possitve for the humanity.
Well it's just my humble opinion.
I stumbled upon bounty source the other day and I found it quite interesting:
https://www.bountysource.com/teams/luxcorerender
(People can pick or add concrete issues and offer money to any developer who fixes it)
I came across this post from Open Drone Map about a funding scheme they are using. https://www.opendronemap.org/2020/07/a-new-era-of-open-source-funding-how-we-raised-5099-for-core-work/
I have often wondered what is the next natural stage after the "shareholding principle" -- the history of how shareholding came into industry is quite interesting. But it has not changed much IMHO.
With all the developments in open source software; there is one area where the open source movement has not yet got into well: Which is open source business processes. I wonder why one cannot have a new format of running a business, which picks up lessons from crowdfunding, blockchain, and the shareholding principle
There is one Canadian company which is into open source hardware which uses an OVN (Open Value Network) instead of the shareholding principle to run their company. See this TEDx talk instead me explaining it. I found only one researcher, Verna Alee who seem to be talking about it. Her talk about it is also interesting:
Here is Verna's playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKUeOXz8J87Ssw2mwJThG7PxEXrIjyPun
And a medium blog about Verna https://stangarfield.medium.com/verna-allee-profiles-in-knowledge-bdee78163ac9
But apart from Sensorica and Verna; I have not yet heard much more on this topic -- but I have not been actively researching on this. Maybe there is something happening in this area
One related question is: What if one part of it is closed-source and others around it are open source? I think some of the add-ons to Rhino are open-source even though Rhino itself is closed source. I think that is also a reasonable way to make money and also be generous to the world
Login or Register to reply.