What is Digg?34 Comments
- Spaguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Great points, but any solution ideas? I myself have considered contributing back to the OpenSource community for all the great work. I can't with code, but perhaps financially. Who then, do we contribute to that will spread the funds to the appropriate sources? There is too much risk of scammers out there feeding of the work of OpenSource. Is there a well known central OpenSource place we can safely contribute too? That can brand and advertise itself to use users... kinda like Paypal, eBay, Amazon, RSS feed icon... We need a standard Icon/link that all people can freely put on their websites, blogs, etc that directly link back to the OpenSource community for donations and consumer awareness. I think the viral tendencies of the blog-o-sphere will spread the word quickly and support a public awareness campaign quickly. I personally would be happy to at the very least place an icon/badge/link to such a central source for all things OpenSource. So many more people would become more familiar with the OpenSource community and all the benefits it provides to the world.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Best thing to do is write bug reports. Documentation and artwork is also nice.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Utopia is a funny concept. According to Plato people would have absolute free will but would just choose to do exactly what he wants them to do. Essentially become enlightened enough to recognise that they should do what they are told*. It's sort of like the Christian 'you have free will but you damn not better sin or you'll go to hell' argument.
It can be interpreted in many ways. To me the variation below sounds a lot like perfect information. The failing in Platos argument is people learn most through experience, formal teaching can guide that experience more productively (make sense of it quicker) but still it is the experience that is crucial. The best way to gain experience is through near anarchy, to be thrown in the deep end so to speak. So this well organised Utopia could only emerge through freedom in the end.
*a variation on this is a society where they just know the right thing to do. Become enlightened enough to recognise what they need to do without being told. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Fact is if one in a thousand contribute back we will be in rude health. We don't need everyone to contribute though it would be nice. What we need is a large enough base that we get lots of contributors just through scale. Fact is as we get more leachers we get more producers. This isn't a danger at all. It doesn't cost us anything as such for them to use the code base without contributing but for each person who picks up a copy there is a chance we will get a new developer as a result.
- nofrak1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't someone who writes a GPL derivative work have to furnish their changes upstream on request? Part of the beauty of these copyleft licenses is that you can't use it and not help the community at large.
- hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4what about an annual Open Source Day..
a day where everyone admits they should contribute/give back
donating $1/1euro to any projects they have used in the previous year
up to a prearranged total they are prepared to give
if it was one day a year it would focus ppls minds
and if lots do it they would get a decent amount
EDIT i m not sure i get open source?? - guchdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've always thought, wow that's awesome, when something was released as open source. But in the back my head I pondered how or whom could spend so much time and effort on a project that they get little in return. There's always the I'm doing it for the better of the community, but when there are bug fixes, complaints and requests to grind out one might question is this all worth it.
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You made a valid point. I saw this in a different context (later cited by Dana B. in his blog). It's a mob/Digg subculture here, so just ignore.
- whurley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While Ubuntu doesn't have a donate here paypal button, they do list several ways in which you can help support the project here: http://www.ubuntu.com/support
- whurley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That makes two of us. :)
- whurley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually,one of the complaints about the GPL v2 is that 'application service providers' can take the code, modify it, and give nothing back to the community since their projects are 'hosted'. There are similar 'outs' in other licenses. You are correct in that most open source licenses do try to regulate this. However, there are plenty of examples where people have violated the copyright, trademarks, or licenses of an open source project and met with little or no resistance from the community.
- whurley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm, not sure what this means but thanks...I guess ;)
- miyamotofreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To be honest the ideal solution would be a total open-source world where everyone was using it to the point where the government funded open source.
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I feel ya. I've been looking for Ubuntu's donation section because I've downloaded several gigs worth of apps and updates from their servers over the past year.
- whurley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wash that hand...often!
- teknomunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The GPL requires that if you distribute a project that is under the GPL, you must also distribute the source code to that source. As far as I know, there is nothing about being required to send the changes upstream, but there is nothing to stop the upstream from getting the changes from you.
- whurley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll suggest that we move this discussion and new comments over to Steve Carl's response to "Welcome to Opensville; Population Zero" - http://digg.com/tech_news/Being_a_resident_of_opensville
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1./me still trying to realise what's with all the author abuse in this thread...
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah there ought to be some license or clause within a license that prevents these "parasites" from profiting. Maybe something that says, effectively, "if you take this and make a derivative work, you've got to keep the source open and/or give a good portion of your money to the community" or something. I know it would be impossible to write a GPL that would please everyone, but couldn't individual projects have their own licenses that would suit the needs of that project?
And then when someone violates that license by being a parasite, you can sue them and take all the money they earned and teach them leeches a lesson! - androidqueen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0One of the reasons why people can find the time or energy to contribute to open source projects is that they're frequently trying to solve a problem that they personally have interest in solving. Yes, there are complaints and bug reports, but you can ignore the complaints if they're not useful and the bug reports frequently *are* useful for the developer to know about.
People contribute to open source projects for a variety of reasons. A big one is that it's great to have your code used. The more people use your code, the more bugs they'll turn up and the more likely they are to contribute themselves. Nagios is not "abused" or "exploited." It's flourishing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0We all talk about uniformization in the open source world, but we must think that open source wasn't born to be standardized. There are too many licences, too many concepts united, too many objectives, too many groups to create any kind of standard. The more we want to create standards in open source, the more we divide the community.
Anyway, I've already contributed with code but I never contributed with some money, because I just don't know if the funds would be well applied. As spaguy said, 'There is too much risk of scammers out there feeding of the work of OpenSource.'. - cbbspike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1If chicken was fame and wine was greatness Whurley would have chicken with soda pop, because Whurley doesn't drink wine.
- ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Welcome to Badanalogyville. Population: William Hurley
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Whurley is so girly.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Sounds like you need some kind of nonprofit or philanthropic foundation that would be able to keep an eye on things and fund those developers that are doing good work. Perhaps they can issue a "white list" of favored domains and programmers that they can give their seal of approval for and a "black list" of scammers and people who give no value to the community. Now all you need is a billionaire that's really into Open Source. I wouldn't call Bill Gates on this one.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Whurley craps kryptonite.
- xbmodder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Whurley is the most attractive open source guru in the United States. He will lead us to victory!
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4I'm sorry, "Utopia" is a planned economy, run by benevolent, omnipotent philosopher Kings.
Microsoft is a "Utopia".
What people do by choice is called the "Free Market".
So by definition, Opensville would be a completely free market, not a Utopia. - gllopc, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2"Welcome to Dumpsville! Population: You. PS - I am gay."
- springnet, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2whurley is one of the most lucid exponents of open source systems management on the planet. This is a "must read".
- hkarthik, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2whurley is the man and he knows his stuff.
- hoyhoy42, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3If awesomeness were bricks whurley would have one big brick.
- amuse, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Whurley is one of the most attractive open source gurus in the United States.
- techpeace, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1This one time, whurley touched my hand. I still haven't washed that hand...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is