Out of context, the sentences you quoted could give wrong impression, and we adjusted them but there may be others.
OSS has no concern about end-users retaining freedoms in how they use, study, modify, and share technology. OSS is an upstream developer-centric philosophy.
FS is about the freedoms reaching all the way downstream, and that's our priority
> "This may indicate merely an increased interest in #FLOSS among developers who would not likely reach their goals under any circumstances"
a confusing sentence indeed. Updated to:
"Of course, there will always be lots of trials and hacks that don't continue long-term, and that's fine — it just indicates healthy creativity."
incidentally, you must've read decent amount of our wiki to see that old floss-funding-history article…
Thanks for the pointed and constructive feedback!
We may go ahead and update those texts…
But clarification: we're don't *blame* free-software devs. We *celebrate* freedom to hack, fork, etc. — we're just saying it's naive to think that those things will *necessarily* deliver adequate freedoms and ethical software to all. Often cooperation, resources, and explicit ethical *intentions* make the difference in *addition* to hacking.
In your posts throughout: too much mind-reading. You put words in others' mouths and mistakenly assume intentions and values.
You're imagining disagreements that don't exist.
Surely you don't oppose coordination and cooperation, right?
We don't propose removing any freedoms for forking, redundancy, wheel-reinvention… they *can* be essential.
And using money within our capitalist system isn't endorsing capitalism.
Fragmentation of *effort*, wheel-reinvention, etc.
If we have 10 projects that are all half-done and the same amount of resources (hours of work) could have made 1 or 2 really robust and complete projects, that's what fragmentation is.
A better metaphor: Reducing free-software fragmentation is like having a few deep friendships instead of just dozens of friendly acquaintances.
> "hope to address the problem of too many similar projects" in direct contrast with this freedom.
Reduced fragmentation in practice ≠ reduced freedom
Forking is an *essential* freedom, but not an end goal in itself. It's a necessary check on the power of any single dominant project and a tool for creativity. But fragmentation isn't itself desirable.
Our crowdmatching system at Snowdrift.coop spreads the burden as wide as possible by design.
We recognize the problem with uneven influence. We want funding that isn't tied to a few wealth philanthropists (philanthropy is, by nature, an exercise of power).
New blog post (finally, a year late) announcing our new forum: https://blog.snowdrift.coop/new-forum
> That theory, that funded projects will pass on funds or maintenance work to the projects they depend on, doesn't seem to be borne out in practice
The only really adequately funded downstream projects today are proprietary, for-profit, exploitive! Of course they do a poor job funding their upstream stuff… but when it really counts they actually DO anyway, see the Linux kernel.
But funding real ethical FLO downstream projects *will* be different reality.
@Blort Final point here: The model is the everyone-matching-each-other. The budget limit isn't crowdmatching, it's just a cap for assurance.
If you're prepared today to donate $15 to a project, crowdmatching lets you *withhold* your donation and use it to incentivize many more people to join you to where it actually makes a difference.
@Blort In other words: if we can get an order of magnitude or two more people donating to public goods at their *actual* budget limits… THEN we can democratically decide which of various methods to use to spread the burden as fairly as possible.
The only reason a limit exists now, far before it could be hit is for the portion of people who freak out about the idea of a limitless matching pledge and need reassurance of a hard limit they control.
@Blort We do need to clarify that one point better. The ONLY purpose of a budget limit is a guarantee that you won't donate more than you are willing or can afford.
A forum discussion of the same question: https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/question-about-getting-cut-out-at-budget-limit/1110
that links to https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/limits too
Short answer: We don't want you out, we want to get to where there's 15,000 patrons and we'll be already changing the world by the time you actually hit that limit. How to balance things then is not our problem now.
Snowdrift.coop is only "fairly traditional" to the extent that it's still just people deciding to directly fund projects they care about.
Our crowdmatching model is *not* the common crowdfunding stuff, it's a fundamentally different approach to cooperative fundraising (which is one reason we've struggled to get launched, innovation presents challenges).
There exist libre-focused crowdfunding options already but that's not enough https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding
@bob At Snowdrift.coop, we're working on addressing these dilemmas in ways nobody else is tackling. And Nadia's framing is right but just falls way too short.
Our response / expansion of her thesis: https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/history/software/public-software
New homepage with fancy animated video is now live at https://snowdrift.coop
We only spent about 2 years of (on and off) work on it, so don't expect perfection. ;)
Hopefully, we'll get around to writing blog post about it sometime soon.
Primary driver of the overhaul is announcing our new forum (also highly adjusted to be the best it can be):
All connected policies including Code of Conduct have been overhauled.
Feedback always welcome. Coming soon: blog posts, more announcements…
crowdmatching for public goods
A cooperative funding platform for free/libre/open works
social.coop is a coop-run corner of the fediverse, a cooperative and transparent approach to operating a social platform. We are currently closed to new memberships while we improve our internal processes and policies, and plan to re-open to new folks when that work is complete. [9/2/2018]