[LAU] Payment In Kind Experiment

[drew Roberts]

On Thursday 13 December 2007 09:11, plutek-infinity wrote:
> >From: Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>
> >
> >On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 07:24 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
> >> *** This may just be the key idea. Now we get funding not just from the
> >> limited number of people who use Free Software to make music, but from
> >> the much wider number of people who are willing to buy music.
> >
> >Alas, fundamental error here. The set of people you're talking about is
> >the set of people who are willing to buy a *particular set of music*.
> >
> >If there is anyone on the list who has ever sold enough CD's to pay even
> >a cheap-cost-of-living-nation-resident programmer for one year, please
> >do tell. Two such developers? I'll be amazed. Three? I'll probably
> >conclude that you're lying :)
> >
> >Raising money to pay for s/w development so that programmers can work
> >fulltime costs a LOT OF MONEY. Even if the programmers are holed up in
> >Guatamala or Nepal. And if they are in the first world, which at this
> >point (for all kinds of reasons) most FOSS developers are, it costs even
> >more than that.
> >
> >Its really fantastic that the linux audio community has been as
> >financially supportive of some of its developers (me! i hope others
> >too), but please lets not kid ourselves. The fundraising that is being
> >talked about pays for a feature or two. It doesn't pay for programmers
> >to work full time on stuff, and for professional, complicated programs,
> >that is, alas, precisely what is needed. Even the kernel gets this,
> >albeit via a different mechanism.
>
> well sure, paul... but is it not in the very nature of the FOSS "fabric"
> that support will be varied and needs to come from many (independantly
> insufficient) sources, if it is to have any hope of being (cumulatively)
> sufficient? so, if we can find some *particular* group of people who wish
> to buy our *particular* offering of music, it may be another functional bit
> of income.
>
> but, yes, calling it "the key idea" is likely not correct - idon't think
> there is such a single entity.

I just went back and re-read my key idea phrase and I can see how it could 
very easily be taken in a way I did not intend.

The key is not the particular idea, they key idea is to seek funding outside 
of the small group of linux audio users as they exist at the moment.

And I don't mean key even as most important even, now that I think of it...

Perhaps more, the key feature of this idea and one to look into in other ideas 
as an expanded revenue pool?

In any case, the language was meant to point out that particular feature of 
that idea at a minimum, not to elevate that particular idea above others...

all the best,

drew