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

Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 469 posts

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#141

Post by irremediable »

smcl wrote: post #13

I had no idea this project (and others) had so few contributors. I'd love to be involved in some Open Source project but I always feel like "yeh there's probably millions of people far more talented than me wanting to contribute" and I've no idea how to start. Some people suggest taking a look at the open bug lists for software you use frequently, but on the few occasions I've tried that (python, gcc, and a couple of…

I've sometimes wondered whether it'd be worth mid-to-large open source projects doing more triage for bugs. Because I'm in a similar position: I'm happy to make small fixes to stuff I use, but I'm not familiar enough with many codebases to fix big bugs. If I could pull up a list of bugs sorted by "expected ease of fix", I think I'd contribute a lot more.

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#142

Post by pyre »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #118
pyre wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We give you the code, you can do whatever you want with it, but if you want to build on top of ours The problem here is determining where the divide between "using the software" and "building on top of ours" is. The line becomes blurry when the software is (e.g.) a library where the basic use of the library is to base other software off of it (as opposed to a desktop app -- e.g. GnuCash -- where "usage" has a more…

Which is why there's an explicit form of the GPL for libraries; the LGPL. There still exists uncertainty and ways around it (You can execute GPL programs or write shell scripts so that GPL programs execute your code) such that you don't have to distribute the major parts of your codebase, but the GPL has an explicitly different version for libraries that are supposed to be linked in to non-free software vs libraries…

I was under the impression that there were issues, even with the LGPL. E.g. static vs. dynamic linking.

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#144

Post by cdelsolar »

hackuser wrote: post #81
a3n wrote: post #14

He's been voluntarily cheated. He should take a job, take care of himself (no one else will), and give gpg whatever time he has left, if he has the energy.

> He should take a job, take care of himself (no one else will), and give gpg whatever time he has left, if he has the energy. In your scenario, what will happen to GPG? The world just loses this essential asset?

I'm not saying that GPG is exactly where it needs to be, but is it lost? The code is out there and it is in use by many around the world. Just to play devil's advocate, what's wrong with stopping development on it?

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#145

Post by [deleted] »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #108
pyre wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are using Ubuntu, I see from your profile. How much have you paid them? It's easier for businesses to write off these type donations (and make them for significant amounts) than for private individuals to do so.

>It's easier for businesses Far simpler not to even bother at all.

[deleted]

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#146

Post by teamhappy »

takluyver wrote: post #134
unfamiliar wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I also think we need to change to way we think about critical software like GPG Maybe the lesson here is not to license important software under such permissive licenses. Make it open source and free for non-commercial, require a donation if it is used in a commercial product. I don't really see how you can give something away for free and then expect companies to volunteer to pay for it.

> open source and free for non-commercial, require a donation if it is used in a commercial product Every serious definition of 'open source' or 'free software' says that you can't discriminate by field of endeavour - if you have one set of rules for commercial use and one for non-commercial use, it's not really open source. And the nature of donations is that you can't require them. That's not to say that you can't…

Nope.

We call it Free and Open Source Software for a reason. Open Source means the code is open (i.e., you can study it), Free means it's licensed under a Free Software license (it doesn't necessarily mean free of charge).

People usually omit the "Free and" part when they talk about FOSS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

// Anybody want to tell me why you vote me down? Am I wrong?

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#147

Post by takluyver »

malandrew wrote: post #40
lawl wrote: post #8

I think the biggest problem is visibility for these projects. They need to be louder. In the case of openssl, I had no idea that they were severly underfunded (until heartbleed). Same for GPG until now. I didn't hear they asked for donations. And I doubt I'm the only one. So I quickly checked if maybe this was big on HN at a point and I just missed it. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=GPG%20donation&sort=byPopulari... h…

I'm wondering if there is a meta-donation page that lists a bunch of the most important open source projects, how you can donate to them and their yearly funding goals (and how many developers are being supported).

That could be an interesting project for someone. I suspect the hardest bit would be how you determine which projects are most important or most deserving of donations. As soon as money is involved, people will try to game it and spam it.

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#148

Post by conductr »

Could he not just change the license to require commercial usage by companies with more than $x annual revenue to pay $y in license fees?

Could still remain open source and free for majority of applications if x was high enough. Also, creates a system where those reaping the most also pay the most.

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#149

Post by hf »

mason55 wrote: post #100
hf wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I freely confess to being flabbergasted by these displays of less-than-rigorous thought processes. How would a free software project 'pay it forward'? They are in a very similar position, aren't they? Edit: For some reason, I can't reply to child comments (probably a cool-off time-out at work?). Just a short note here, then: $1.25e6 for the FSF translates to 10 developers like Koch being paid (the donation page quote…

> How would a free software project 'pay it forward'? As mentioned by the grandparent comment, GPG is in use by Debian, Ubuntu and RedHat package managers. Whether or not you count those three as free software they have plenty of money to pay forward to a piece of software that underpins their entire stacks.

The point isn't easily settled, it seems:

I am having a hard time to find financial statements from Debian.

Ubuntu, or rather Canonical, being a private company, doesn't seem to release financial information. The Ubuntu main page doesn't even provide a 'donate' link anymore.

Which leaves RedHat, at last. A public company, of course[0]:

   Operating profit 2014: $ 1.3e9
   Net total income 2014: $ 178.3e6
[0] http://investors.redhat.com/financials-statements.cfm
Post reply on HN