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

Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

clojure.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 77 posts

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#11

Post by andrewvc »

jacquesm wrote: post #6

Good for him, no donations should translate in to obligations, they're donations , voluntary and are considered to be a reward for services rendered in the past, not the future. Typically when someone is as driven as this and you get the output of all the labour that went in to it the proper words are 'thank you' and if you feel like rewarding the creator then that's great. But that does not entitle anybody to future…

Agreed, good for Rich.

Personally, I'd have no problem blowing people off who ask for more than they were promised if it got to this point. Then again, that might bring negativity to the community, so I can see how the decision to just stop personal donations makes sense.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#12

Post by bphogan »

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this.

He's basically complaining that people think they own him (or his time) because they donated money. I've seen that, and it's terribly unfortunate. I was right with him until I saw

    "I encourage businesses using Clojure ...to discuss options for corporate support for Clojure."
Seems to me he'd run into similar problems from corporate sponsorships. Am I missing something here?

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#14

Post by daniel-cussen »

cemerick wrote: post #8
jacquesm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 14 line article is too long to read?

You'd be surprised by how many people read only comments unless/until they're motivated to read TFA. shrug

As long as they don't comment before reading the article, it's fine.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#15

Post by hvs »

bphogan wrote: post #12

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. He's basically complaining that people think they own him (or his time) because they donated money. I've seen that, and it's terribly unfortunate. I was right with him until I saw "I encourage businesses using Clojure ...to discuss options for corporate support for Clojure." Seems to me he'd run into similar problems from corporate sponsorships. Am I missing someth…

My guess is that if a company is willing to sponsor specific development, he is willing to negotiate. I.e. fee-for-service to some extent.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#16

Post by nollidge »

bphogan wrote: post #12

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. He's basically complaining that people think they own him (or his time) because they donated money. I've seen that, and it's terribly unfortunate. I was right with him until I saw "I encourage businesses using Clojure ...to discuss options for corporate support for Clojure." Seems to me he'd run into similar problems from corporate sponsorships. Am I missing someth…

I think that's him offering corporate support contracts, not sponsorships.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#17

Post by bphogan »

nollidge wrote: post #16
bphogan wrote: post #12

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. He's basically complaining that people think they own him (or his time) because they donated money. I've seen that, and it's terribly unfortunate. I was right with him until I saw "I encourage businesses using Clojure ...to discuss options for corporate support for Clojure." Seems to me he'd run into similar problems from corporate sponsorships. Am I missing someth…

I think that's him offering corporate support contracts, not sponsorships.

I guess I can see that. I didn't read "support" in terms of "support contract" but that does make more sense. Thanks.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#18

Post by barrkel »

bphogan wrote: post #12

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. He's basically complaining that people think they own him (or his time) because they donated money. I've seen that, and it's terribly unfortunate. I was right with him until I saw "I encourage businesses using Clojure ...to discuss options for corporate support for Clojure." Seems to me he'd run into similar problems from corporate sponsorships. Am I missing someth…

Corporate support != corporate sponsorship.

When you get a support contract from Red Hat (for example), you aren't donating money to the development of Linux like a sponsorship; you're indirectly supporting Linux development, but really what you're interested in is either (a) specific solutions to specific problems, or (b) getting access to people should a problem arise in the future during the term of the contract.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#19

Post by DeusExMachina »

bphogan wrote: post #12

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. He's basically complaining that people think they own him (or his time) because they donated money. I've seen that, and it's terribly unfortunate. I was right with him until I saw "I encourage businesses using Clojure ...to discuss options for corporate support for Clojure." Seems to me he'd run into similar problems from corporate sponsorships. Am I missing someth…

I think that the difference is that this is not corporate sponsorship, but a service to corporations.

As I see it with this service they pay him for his consulting and knowledge on how to use at best Clojure for development/testing/deploy.

But they don't have the option to say something regarding the development of the language itself.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#20

Post by DeusExMachina »

cemerick wrote: post #8
jacquesm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 14 line article is too long to read?

You'd be surprised by how many people read only comments unless/until they're motivated to read TFA. shrug

In this case wc is not that different though:

  summary:   3      80     512
  original:  3     123     761
EDIT: format.
Post reply on HN