<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Hi All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">I'll jump right into the deep end!</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">This is definitely a hard problem to solve. It seems like we are getting close to having the technology to solve the problem but the questions that need to be addressed are really difficult and need to be answered before we can apply technology to track it.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">To start the conversation let's assume we have the answers to these questions. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">When I contribute to a project I should receive value from that contribution that is proportionate to the contribution. When I use the software I should contribute to the software in a way that is proportionate to the value I receive from using that software. These two statements are very simple and does not address other concerns like ethical use or other benefits received by contributors. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">If you get either side of the equation wrong everything breaks. Companies will not use the software if the cost is too high or the risk that the price will grow is too great. Maintainers will not support the software if they feel their contributions are undervalued, or if the benefit is too great gaming the system will proliferate and the quality of contributions will go down.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">In open source software today you can make the argument that companies that benefit do contribute by hiring developers to maintain and develop software that is in some cases contributed back to the community.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">If we can answer the questions about how to determine proportionate contributions to the software and value received by using the software, we could have a blockchain for a project with a pool of development tokens that gain value as companies purchase tokens to be used as licenses. The value of the tokens increases with time and popularity of the software project. Tokens value can be decreased over time from everyone to replenish the development / maintenance pool by increasing the number of tokens available and companies will be required to either purchase new tokens to keep up their license requirements or to contribute to development / maintenance activities. Tokent holders should have a proportionate say in how the new development or maintenance activities progress. Liquidity comes from interactions between token holders and purchasers which may not be guaranteed if the project is losing popularity or failing to be maintained. The incentives are to contribute new projects and to get licenses early to reduce the costs and increase the benefits. It also pushes the costs and payments down as project loses popularity. Extremely popular software may become too expensive for companies to use so speculation needs to be curved in some way maybe by defining token doubling moments based on the size of the development community and the number of customer licenses. Those are details but very important ones to consider. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Open source can also provide companies the opportunity to develop additional IP which they pay for and need to maintain on their own. Would a collaborative software licenses allow this activity or would contributions of IP be a requirement. Could companies develop IP which would then require additional licenses that go directly to the developer entity. These details are really important to companies when they decide to use or develop software. Having a Squeak marketplace for software developed in Squeak would be a very interesting development if the purchase price benefits everyone including feature creators, platform developers and maintainers. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">We should also consider that companies that develop software today using open source use a very large number of open source projects. Some of these projects are only popular because they are easy to integrate or are already included in other components. They solve a small problem in a very complex solution and often when these projects are abandoned there is a very huge risk that changes and the lack of consistency will require huge development and is hampering innovation and not supporting it. When I use Linux I don't select all the components but I use them. If open source is decimated what will be the impact on innovation and would our concepts support or hamper advancements in software? (be careful what you wish for)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Eliot and I have also been talking about the additional benefits to participants and companies that are not addressed by fees and compensation. It is important that these benefits be organized and recognized as a benefit to both sides. The concept of a Guild has always made sense to me. Having a Guild of members that are guaranteed to have the required skills for companies to select from would be a great benefit for companies looking for talent. Having an organization that provides that certification, training, along with benefits like pensions, unemployment, or payment for contributions to software would be beneficial for members. Guilds could also work together to build commercial products that support the member benefits. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">So now the hard part.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">How do you determine the value of a contribution? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">How do you determine the value of the software to a company to determine what they should pay? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Would you join a Guild to get certified and/or placed on an availability list? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Would you use a guild to hire software developers? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Would you support a software marketplace that built applications on top of a collaborative software projects that supports everyone or would this just splinter development and make it too difficult for a company to actually use the software. How does this affect tiny software projects that are really just components of much larger projects.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">What are your thoughts on building a blockchain market for collaborative software projects? (does it solve problems or make things more complicated?)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Feel free to join in the conversation the water is nice!</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">All the best,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Ron Teitelbaum</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 9:16 AM Herbert König <<a href="mailto:herbertkoenig@gmx.net">herbertkoenig@gmx.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Eliot,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think it's not the first time to point us to that kind of
resource. Highly on topic IMHO. Will read it because we (Squeak
Dev) are affected.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Herbert</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>Am 17.10.2019 um 13:13 schrieb Eliot
Miranda:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p><span>Don Goodman-Wilson’s moral
critique of Open Source; essential reading.</span></p>
<p><span></span><br>
</p>
<p><span>“What if we look at Open Source
values through the lens of moral philosophy, by applying
Scanlon’s contractualist theory of morality? When we do
that, I think it becomes pretty clear that we ought to
discard openness as an axiom, and start thinking about other
ways to build software collaboratively that do not make us
accessory to horrors. We can create open communities, better
communities, more inclusive communities, without Open
Source.</span></p>
<p><span></span><br>
</p>
<p><span>The Open Source movement has
always been focused on code. The result is a system that
sadly neglects people."</span></p>
<p><span>...</span></p>
<p><span>“Here are some candidate
principles to guide an ethical conception of collaborative
development.”</span></p>
<p><span></span><a href="https://don.goodman-wilson.com/posts/open-source-is-broken/" target="_blank">https://don.goodman-wilson.com/posts/open-source-is-broken/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)</span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote></div>