GnuPG sounds like a prime candidate for Linux Foundation's core infrastructure initiative. http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/core-infrastructure-... If they're willing to fund a new NTP implementation then they should be able to drop a few coins in the GnuPG bucket too
Strange you cannot seem to just donate to the Linux Foundation, you have to become a member?
Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
431–440 of 469 posts
Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
#432big shout to the journalist that actually reported the issue instead of vaporware shenanigans. @JuliaAngwin
Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
#433Can someone explain why GPG in the person of Werner Koch isn't substantially funded under FSFE? My first thought was the Software Freedom Conservancy. The only reasons I see for them not to take GPG under their wing are lack of will (but why?), sense of funding priorities (but why?), or the possibility that some GPG constituents would be concerned about associating GPG strongly with a US-based organization.
Because this article is misleading. Apparantly, Koch has been subsidized by the german government thus felt no need to be used the FSFE. Secondly, gpg isn't really used for enterprise email, SMIME is or commercial php. There's a history of Koch that is pretty ugly. He tried to start a consulting company with said government money and seems to have a "pay me to fix bugs" attitude. This breathless "omg must donate now"…
> seems to have a "pay me to fix bugs" attitude
There's nothing wrong with that attitude. There's no reason why he should be doing work without pay.
If people send him bug fixes and he refuses to merge them, that's something else. But he doesn't have to work for nothing. I assume that whatever money he may be receiving from the German government may be used for other kinds of developments, not bugs that don't affect him.
Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making people pay for software is not evil. It is not giving those same people the source code that is evil. This is because by not giving them the source code you are keeping your users under your thumb and not allowing them the freedom to improve their lot.
https://developer.apple.com/xcode/downloads/ Free. Improve your lot however you like.
How does Apple figure into this? I did not mention Apple, I was countering the parent’s FUD, which also did not mention Apple.
Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost nobody would call merely viewable source "open source". Certainly not the OSI.
I see. I call that free software, because "having access to the source code" is part of free software licenses. The kind of "open source" I was talking about is source code that is released under a non-free software license. What do we call that? --- @alexvoda "it's not really open source" is the part I tried to contradict. I may have been wrong though.
"open source" has been in use as a term in tech for a long time. It means (essentially) the same thing as "free software". Licences that disallow derivations (or commerical derivations) would not fall under the defintion of "open source" that nearly everyone uses.
You are free to come up with your own defintion of popular, agreed up terms. But this will lead to problems when you're using a different definition from everyone else.
Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The kind of "open source" I was talking about is source code that is released under a non-free software license. What do we call that? "obnoxious". More seriously, typically something like "look but don't touch", or "proprietary with source available", or "source available under a restrictive license". Microsoft used to call it "shared source", and that term still has those connotations too. Definitely not "open so…
It's common practice in the game industry to license/pay for access to the source code. Whether you end up changing it or not is up to you, but at least you have a choice. This might not be true for Microsoft's "public" source code. I don't know. It looks like we're talking about two very different domains. The Unreal Engine is an example for this kind of business model on a large scale. KoboldTouch (used to be?) an…
There's nothing wrong with doing that. Feel free to do whatever you want. But what you are talking about is not "Open Source". That term has a (different) meaning. If use "open source" for that, you will confused and trick people.
Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's awesome, but it's weird to me that Facebook, etc. will happily pay a senior engineer a total compensation of $200k+ yet only pledge $50k for the maintainer of a critical tool. Not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth here, just odd perception of the priorities here.
Out of interest, what does this senior engineer have to do? Is it C++ or PHP? EDIT: Someone downvoted me, not sure why, but I am genuinely curious what the senior engineer does?
I'd guess that whoever downvoted you thought this was a troll meant to start a flamewar with C++ vs. PHP and whether one or the other is more difficult (read "better" or "a real language").
It's interesting to note though, that Facebook does uses PHP and C++ extensively. And Facebook maintains a large a number of open source PHP and C++ projects. So I suppose that some Facebook engineers are more involved with PHP and some more involved with C++.
But more importantly, I don't think Facebook engineers are bound to a technology. They think about how to solve problems. If PHP is the best tool to solve a problem, they'll use that. If it's C++, they'll use that instead.
Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're our own worst enemies. Software developers have this sort of circular firing squad where nobody wants to be the first to keep their source closed and try to charge for it. Because then you're just "greedy" and not pure enough. But that'll never change unless all of a sudden we say "Ok, on the count of 3, everybody stop giving away their hard-earned expertise for free. 1... 2... 3..." We're like musicians nowada…
> where nobody wants to be the first to keep their source closed and try to charge for it Seems like there's another option -- open source your project and also charge for a license to use it. By open sourcing people will trust it more which will cause its value to go up. And then more people would be willing to pay for it.
As I understand it, that's what he did. He open sourced it and kept copyright on it. That would mean that everybody would be free to read it as posted but wouldn't be able to use it or distribute it without permission.
Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
#439Its ok, he got like 200k in 24 hours so he's good now.
Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
#440Meta-question, ideally aimed at Daniel if you're reading this, but not interesting enough to email you plus wondering what community members think: Normally I'd be against comments like "donated" that add nothing else, and would downvote them for that. But in this case, does seeing lots of other people say they've donated make other readers more likely to donate themselves? If so, does that outweigh the negative of t…
I upvoted each person who said they donated or had something else that contributes to the thread.
I reason that saying that you donated and perhaps how much, is in fact a good thread contribution. At least this time, I'll take this on a case by case basis. Generally, however - I guess I'm against it since it clutters threads.