Funding Free Software is perfectly possible

Yesterday in the Tinkerspace XMPP channel, someone shared a blog post. The author of the post complained about how it's supposedly impossible to monetize "open source" software, because any competitor can just copy your code and make their own product.

This is a pretty ancient complaint. It's been around almost since the inception of the Free Software movement. Really, it's the first objection when someone is told about the concept of anti-monopolist software/data/media.

The author's unique and innovative solution (/s) was to redefine "open source" to add restrictions for commercial use, and to ask all their would-be critics to shut up. 😅

I've previously examined some popular ways of funding free software, their drawbacks, and a better model for monetizing libre software.

It never ceases to perplex me that so few people talk about this model, let alone apply it. It's discussed in detail in the earlier post, but I'll quickly describe it again -

1. You write the code,
2. You publish some demo videos/screenshots,
3. You crowdfund the cost of your labor, and
4. (after successful crowdfunding) you release the code.

Alternatively,

1. You write the code;
2. You release the source and/or the binary under full copyright, i.e. as "freeware"/"shareware";
3. You implement the community's feedback, if any;
4. You crowdfund the cost of your labor, and
5. (after successful crowdfunding) you release the code under an anti-monopolist license.

This code can be a greenfield project, or a patch to (or a new release of) an existing project which adds features and/or bugfixes.

It doesn't even have to be code - it can be any work, including documentation, translations, data, photos, videos, 3D models, etc.

The last time I wrote about this "ransom" model a.k.a. Street Performer Protocol (SPP), the response was tepid. Some people complained about it being "risky".

The "risk", I imagine, is that your crowdfunding would fail, and you wouldn't recover your costs.

What I didn't realize back then was that all companies releasing a product or service are running the same risk.

Freelance artists hoping that people will buy copies of their music or art are running the same risk.

In both cases, people are investing effort and hoping they will sell enough copies to recover the costs and turn a profit.

The risk can also be mitigated by charging an advance amount, which helps signal that the community is interested in the work.

Alternatively, all development costs can be crowdfunded upfront - this is also something so many companies and artists have done over the years.

So why aren't these approaches being applied to monetizing anti-monopolist works?

The problem with the Street Performer Protocol for anti-monopolist software is not risk.

The problem is that it makes rent-seeking difficult, so while the SPP is profitable, it's not quite as profitable as the more popular rent-seeking model.

With monopolist digital works, you can potentially get profits disproportionate to the labor invested. Once a digital work has been made, copies of it can keep being sold repeatedly, ¹¹ While you have to keep maintaining and enhancing software, the point remains. by restricting the freedoms of the customers.

Using the SPP for anti-monopolist works, you can only get as much money as the community is willing to pay at the time of crowdfunding. Instead of selling copies (one-time investment, recurring sales), you are selling a release (one-time investment, one-time sale). ²² At least with software, future enhancements can also be crowdfunded…but at that point you're also competing with other developers who can extend your software at no cost, undercutting you.

In other words, an anti-monopolist worker is not selling a product - per is selling a service. The commercial software world is full of examples of consulting companies which do exactly this - they will write or modify code for money, and the clients have complete freedom to do what they will with the subsequent product.

(How absurd do the claims now sound, that the SPP cannot work or that "open source" cannot be monetized!)

So - profits for the anti-monopolist worker may theoretically be limited, but it's still profitable. And the limit can be pushed - if the worker has a good reputation among the community, per can demand higher rates for pers work.

The difficulty of rent-seeking also means it's difficult to make a passive income working on anti-monopolist projects. Passive income is good - everyone deserves to live comfortably, even if they temporarily can't work or don't feel like working - but it should be something available to all (a.k.a. Universal Basic Income), not just those who happen to have a monopoly over a valuable resource (be it physical or digital).

Also, it's not impossible to have a passive income using the Street Performer Protocol - you can simply combine it with the prevalent recurring donations model.

The problem is not that anti-monopolist software cannot be monetized - it clearly can. There's a model, and it's been used for commercial software for ages.

The following are what I regard as the two real enemies of anti-monopolist software monetization.

So…the problem is not the impossibility of monetization. The problem is the mindset and culture in the community.

Contributors need to get in the habit of charging for their anti-monopolist works.

And users need to get in the habit of supporting contributors financially.

Granted, it's a circular problem. The misconceptions of users won't change if there's no culture of developers asking for money. And developers won't ask for money if users are hostile to the idea.

But someone has to break the cycle.