Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 493 posts

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#351

Post by saganus »

brianwawok wrote: post #48
saganus wrote: post #46

Sometimes I dream that if I ever become very wealthy (either because of something I created or because I won the lottery) I would go around and donate some nice money to these under-appreciated developers/organizations/projects. I mean, if I had billions, wouldn't it be feasible to spend say 1M or even 0.5M to say, 100 projects? 200 maybe? Does this not happen or do we just not hear about it if it ever happens?

Most people would rather save 1,000 people from Malaria in Africa than give 1 white college educated man living in one of the richest counties on earth a year's salary to write code from his home office. (I am sure it happens, but I am sure that it is pretty low on the donation list)

Well yeah, I agree. I didn't mean to say I wouldn't ever donate or use my (imaginary) millions to save lives as well.

I was just daydreaming about something that I would like to do if I could.

In that sense I would also like to donate a few millions to Watsi for example. (I have already made a few donations there, but nothing close to millions) or to some institution in my own country.

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#352

Post by ufo »

ghaff wrote: post #330
ufo wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selling software via a proprietary license to an enterprise can be bad for open source because it means that the enterprise doesn't need to obey the terms of the GPL. They are free to modify and adapt the code without contributing the changes back to the community, which kind of ruuing the point of the GPL in the first place. This method also only works if the copyright if fully owned by a single person or entity, wi…

>They are free to modify and adapt the code without contributing the changes back to the community, which kind of ruuing the point of the GPL in the first place. As they are with the GPL so long as they don't distribute the modified code outside of the organization.

If they receive a copy of the software under a non-GPL license they might also be allowed to redistribute modified versions without releasing the source code. (This is usually the whole point of having the proprietary dual-licensing scheme).

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#353

Post by skaplun »

inimino wrote: post #311
skaplun wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't think this will be very easy to achieve on a human level. There are plenty of platforms that allow devs to meet sales partners but most people would rather just go at it alone or don't trust others or don't play well with others etc etc. Even the author of this piece, who testifies to poverty, chooses to ask for global donations rather than seek out a business partner

I think it would be something like "sign up with us and we handle the sales, support, billing, and invoicing". Lots of open source projects don't need to bring on a business partner, but they might benefit from something like this. Just like not everyone on Kickstarter would go out and raise money by themselves.

The dev would presumably pay through revenue share, because we already established s/he is poor, making a jv where the marketing provider will ask for many adjustments from the dev because they need results fast. It's not a clear cut provider/client relationship and I'm not sure how many devs would choose to pursue this

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#354

Post by ghaff »

phaemon wrote: post #283
scrollaway wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe there is a single OSI or common license that makes it straightforward for an author to say "This has all the open source freedoms, except for commercial uses" and sell the exception. When I see people asking if they can do this, they get laughed out of the room by others who claim that "open source freedoms" does not restrict commercial use. This is kind of a serious issue. Artists get such a license,…

Isn't that "The Non-Profit Open Software License"? https://opensource.org/licenses/NPOSL-3.0

Apparently not. Your comment actually made me look it up because my understanding was that these sorts of restricted uses weren't allowed for OSI licenses.

Apparently NPOSL addresses an issue with some non-profits making warranties, not to restrict usage to non-profits:

http://marlacorinne.4parkers.com/2014/06/20/non-commercial-o...

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#355

Post by edblarney »

mbreese wrote: post #323
edblarney wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There should be funding bodies for projects like this who can fund projects and also provide a semblance of orchestration. " A much better way than 'government funding' would be for users to just pay for it . It's called 'capitalism' it works very well. Oftentimes, it's difficult for the government and centralized bodies to know 'what to fund' and what not to - it's a hard thing, it can get political. Money goes ent…

It doesn't have to be "government" funding. Sometimes funding via traditional capitalistic sources (starting a company) just isn't the right model to fund something worthwhile. Think about low-level libraries... Also, the overhead of starting a company (or project-specific foundation) can be more inefficient than just running as a one-person shop. Maybe the author is really good at software, but bad at marketing. Gov…

"Why couldn't there be an umbrella organization (not gov't) that accepts donations on behalf of the community"

Why would you do that?

Why not just have people pay for it?

No overhead needed.

"But there is a good model that is already working in other fields - the grant process"

'Grants' are speculative redistributions of capital into areas that some decision making body deems worthy - but which may have no bearing at all on what companies and people actually want to use - ergo - not usually very efficient.

We have no choice in some cases (i.e. pure research) but for this stuff we do.

This is just software, it's not rocket science, there's likely a way to just have people pay for it without too much overhead.

A researcher can buy his breakfast, his home, his equipment, his computer, he can buy software as well.

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#356

Post by skaplun »

dibstern wrote: post #288
skaplun wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't think this will be very easy to achieve on a human level. There are plenty of platforms that allow devs to meet sales partners but most people would rather just go at it alone or don't trust others or don't play well with others etc etc. Even the author of this piece, who testifies to poverty, chooses to ask for global donations rather than seek out a business partner

A sales partner is different to a company that helps monetise. And just because he is asking for donations doesn't mean he's against monetising.

Depends how you pay the company as I wrote above. If you're just a poor single man op you share revenue and that company becomes your partner

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#357

Post by AlwaysRock »

taway_1212 wrote: post #200
vcistan-inmate wrote: post #41

I don't understand how YC can fund non-profits like VotePlz and the ACLU while not funding stuff like this. All of the startups funded by VCs use free software, often exclusively, but these VCs continue to refuse to adequately fund its development. Marc Andreessen even publicly boasted about how much OSS his companies use[1], which he of course doesn't pay for. I also shudder to think of how Eaton will fare on the jo…

I have a theory on why Google insists on whiteboarding senior-level candidates. I don't think it's for checking for talent as much as for checking for motivation. Think about it - in order to pass, you basically need to drill those algorithmic exercises for weeks before the interview. If you do, it's a very good signal that you really want to work for Google (similarly, investment banks, management consultancies, pre…

This. Because of the massive amount of hiring the big 4 do their entire interview process is available online. Sure there are variations depending on the interviewer you may end up in a room with but for the most part they all follow the same format. Anyone who really wanted to work at one of these has to study and practice how to interview for THAT company. Sure there is still some element of luck / right time right place in play but most people who fair interviews at the big four just don't put in the time required to prepare.

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#358

Post by mbreese »

divbit wrote: post #347
mbreese wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shouldn't be for-profit. It should be a non-profit granting foundation where projects could apply for grants based on merit and need. Let the foundation handle the paperwork and accept donations on behalf of everyone. Have a board of directors made up of well respected open-source names, and you'd be well on your way.

Grant applications, at least in academia, I've heard take lots of time / etc away from actual work - Although if this became the norm maybe it would lower the hurdle - Alternatively, an nomination system could be used, or something based on stars / forks / etc of a repository?

They do take time, but they are also helpful for planning purposes (I will do X and Y if given Z amount of money). There would need to be some sort of application, but it doesn't need to be as elaborate as (say) an NSF proposal. I would imagine community engagement or recommendations would also be a valid criterion to elevate a proposal's score.

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#359

Post by ghaff »

chillydawg wrote: post #282
gpvos wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still do not get it. What explodes when a company donates (instead of paying for something with an invoice)? I cannot imagine that it is illegal.

It's all legal and fine, it's just how do you get it approved? You're not actually buying anything, nothing will stop working and no projects will be impacted without the PO. In a large company, this effectively makes it impossible. The solution is to just pretend you're buying a minimal support contract and that'll get approved no worries.

Furthermore, in large companies, charitable contributions are probably handled by a completely different organization with monies coming out of a completely different bucket than sponsorships being paid out by some marketing department or other.

Re: Looking for Work After 25 Years of Octave

#360

Post by whit537 »

toyg wrote: post #284
bravura wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you donate a recurring amount monthly to open-source software development? Imagine a site that auto-bills your credit card every month. You can specify projects you want to support, or just support a portfolio of projects that someone else has devised. If so, please fill out this quick survey. I'm curious if this idea has legs: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfXIqUqsfDoUplWeWYs...

This has been done to death, with Patreon being the most famous example. The problem of this model is that it's still basically B2C, a sort of charity for free work. What we need is enabling more B2B, i.e. a flow of invoices for some nominal "premium" work.

Yes! This is basically what we've concluded at Gratipay (née Gittip). Existing crowdfunding solutions are consumer-grade, and open source needs business-grade crowdfunding, as it were. We're working on it! :)
Post reply on HN