On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 19:45:51 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 at 08:31:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> This is an idea I've been kicking around for a while, and given the need for commercial support for D, would perhaps work well here.
>>
>> [...]
>
> By the way, in case you are interested in this path personally still, I'd be willing to pay for D support, tuition, help with getting stuck, code review etc for colleagues. Not for patches that aren't immediately open sourced, but we fixed windows paths on DMD for example, and there might be scope for occasional paid work on dmd and dub like that.  Also porting headers.

I appreciate the offer, but I'm not looking for paying work on the D language.  I understand the assumption most make that I'm looking to make money off the D language itself by pushing this commercial model, but I'm actually not interested in developing language-related software like compilers, tooling, or the standard library, even if paid for it.  I got stuck porting much of those D tools for Android, but it's a one-time excursion for me.

What I'm actually interested in is using D to make commercial Android apps, and while I think D is a great language already, I think it could be made better by using this commercial model I've sketched out.  And the better D is, obviously the better any commercial apps I develop with it.

Back when I first wrote about mixing open and closed source like this in my 2010 Phoronix article, nobody considered it a world-beating model.  Maybe people now assume I'm just keying these ideas off the success of Android in using a similar mixed model, but my article was published when Android had only single-digit market share so I hardly paid attention to it, as it was only one of a gaggle of mobile OS's competing at the time:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Market_share

While I had heard of a few companies using similar mixed models here and there, none were that successful back then, so my article was based mostly on theory.  I think the evidence since then has proven that theory resoundingly accurate, given all the huge projects, such as Android, iOS, Safari, Chrome, LLVM/clang, using mixed models now.  Even Microsoft, who used to look askance at open source, has gotten in the game, open-sourcing .NET and several of their other projects.

In my article, I added another elaboration where even closed-source patches are eventually open-sourced, which I still believe to be the endgame of how this market eventually develops, even though AFAIK I'm still the only person that ever used that time-limited model on an actual project, which is mentioned in the article's prologue.  Such open-sourcing happens in an ad-hoc manner right now, where a company will develop a proprietary module for a mixed codebase and then eventually open-source it if they feel like it:

http://www.brianmadden.com/opinion/Samsung-contributes-KNOX-to-Android-Open-Source-Project-Is-this-the-end-of-Android-Fragmentation

My time-limited model makes sure all source is made open eventually, once the developers have been paid for their work.

As for the other paid work you mention, I'm actually not a very experienced D dev, probably about intermediate level.  I did take some assembly language programming classes back in my college days decades ago, so I was able to figure out the low-level details needed to get D working on Android.

I'm sure you can find much better D devs to contribute such work by posting bounties on the D or ldc bountysource pages:

https://www.bountysource.com/teams/d
https://www.bountysource.com/teams/ldc-developers

I now see you posted some recurring funding on that first page, would be better if you allocated it to issues you actually need, as I'm not sure how such recurring funding is even allocated.

You may need to cross-post the backed issues here in the forum once in a while to publicize them, as I don't think many are aware that those bounties even exist, as we don't link them on the front page like some other languages do.

On 2018-01-31 09:43, Joakim wrote:

> Back when I first wrote about mixing open and closed source like this in
> my 2010 Phoronix article, nobody considered it a world-beating model.
> Maybe people now assume I'm just keying these ideas off the success of
> Android in using a similar mixed model, but my article was published
> when Android had only single-digit market share so I hardly paid
> attention to it, as it was only one of a gaggle of mobile OS's competing
> at the time:
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Market_share
>
> While I had heard of a few companies using similar mixed models here and
> there, none were that successful back then, so my article was based
> mostly on theory.  I think the evidence since then has proven that
> theory resoundingly accurate, given all the huge projects, such as
> Android, iOS, Safari, Chrome, LLVM/clang, using mixed models now.  Even
> Microsoft, who used to look askance at open source, has gotten in the
> game, open-sourcing .NET and several of their other projects.

Apple has been using a mix of open and closed source for decades. The source code for all versions of macOS, back to the first one, is available here [1].

[1] https://opensource.apple.com

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 1 February 2018 at 20:52:43 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2018-01-31 09:43, Joakim wrote:
>
>> Back when I first wrote about mixing open and closed source like this in
>> my 2010 Phoronix article, nobody considered it a world-beating model.
>> Maybe people now assume I'm just keying these ideas off the success of
>> Android in using a similar mixed model, but my article was published
>> when Android had only single-digit market share so I hardly paid
>> attention to it, as it was only one of a gaggle of mobile OS's competing
>> at the time:
>>
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Market_share
>>
>> While I had heard of a few companies using similar mixed models here and
>> there, none were that successful back then, so my article was based
>> mostly on theory.  I think the evidence since then has proven that
>> theory resoundingly accurate, given all the huge projects, such as
>> Android, iOS, Safari, Chrome, LLVM/clang, using mixed models now.  Even
>> Microsoft, who used to look askance at open source, has gotten in the
>> game, open-sourcing .NET and several of their other projects.
>
> Apple has been using a mix of open and closed source for decades. The source code for all versions of macOS, back to the first one, is available here [1].
>
> [1] https://opensource.apple.com

I know, I was aware of it, but I wouldn't call OS X's single-digit market share or iOS's 16% market share in 2009 "that successful:"

https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/google’s-android-becomes-world’s-leading-smart-phone-platform

Also, they were notorious for having a mostly closed tech stack, and not getting almost any outside contribution to the OSS portions.

On Wednesday, 31 January 2018 at 08:43:46 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> ...
>
> My time-limited model makes sure all source is made open eventually, once the developers have been paid for their work.
>

This deceptive hybrid model (based I my understanding of it per the description above) is really offensive to those of us who understand the concept of open-source, and the benefits that flow from it.

You (not you personally - I mean the person implementing such a hybrid model) lure people in with free open source, then, when something is found to be wrong with it, you make them wait for the fix.. until.. .. .. your ransom has been paid.

Utterly offensive (the model that is).

Open source means just that ...  Open source - It's turtles all the way down.

Ransom-ware is something very different.

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 02:04:07 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 January 2018 at 08:43:46 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> My time-limited model makes sure all source is made open eventually, once the developers have been paid for their work.
>>
>
> This deceptive hybrid model (based I my understanding of it per the description above) is really offensive to those of us who understand the concept of open-source, and the benefits that flow from it.
>
> You (not you personally - I mean the person implementing such a hybrid model) lure people in with free open source, then, when something is found to be wrong with it, you make them wait for the fix.. until.. .. .. your ransom has been paid.
>
> Utterly offensive (the model that is).
>
> Open source means just that ...  Open source - It's turtles all the way down.
>
> Ransom-ware is something very different.

Except it's none of those things, as you yourself grasp that it's a "hybrid model," ie not purely open source.  So it cannot be deceptive, offensive, or ransom-ware, since it's perfectly clear that it's its own thing.  And that mixed model is pretty much the way all software is built these days, including the linux kernel as mentioned earlier in this thread, so you are clearly using such mixed software too, just by the fact that you posted in this thread.

So given that all your claims are easily logically proven to be nonsense, there's no point in going any further.

On 31 January 2018 at 09:43, Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 19:45:51 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 at 08:31:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>
>>> This is an idea I've been kicking around for a while, and given the need for commercial support for D, would perhaps work well here.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>
>> By the way, in case you are interested in this path personally still, I'd be willing to pay for D support, tuition, help with getting stuck, code review etc for colleagues. Not for patches that aren't immediately open sourced, but we fixed windows paths on DMD for example, and there might be scope for occasional paid work on dmd and dub like that.  Also porting headers.
>
>
> I appreciate the offer, but I'm not looking for paying work on the D language.  I understand the assumption most make that I'm looking to make money off the D language itself by pushing this commercial model, but I'm actually not interested in developing language-related software like compilers, tooling, or the standard library, even if paid for it.  I got stuck porting much of those D tools for Android, but it's a one-time excursion for me.
>
> What I'm actually interested in is using D to make commercial Android apps, and while I think D is a great language already, I think it could be made better by using this commercial model I've sketched out.  And the better D is, obviously the better any commercial apps I develop with it.
>
> Back when I first wrote about mixing open and closed source like this in my 2010 Phoronix article, nobody considered it a world-beating model.  Maybe people now assume I'm just keying these ideas off the success of Android in using a similar mixed model, but my article was published when Android had only single-digit market share so I hardly paid attention to it, as it was only one of a gaggle of mobile OS's competing at the time:
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Market_share
>
> While I had heard of a few companies using similar mixed models here and there, none were that successful back then, so my article was based mostly on theory.  I think the evidence since then has proven that theory resoundingly accurate, given all the huge projects, such as Android, iOS, Safari, Chrome, LLVM/clang, using mixed models now.  Even Microsoft, who used to look askance at open source, has gotten in the game, open-sourcing .NET and several of their other projects.
>
> In my article, I added another elaboration where even closed-source patches are eventually open-sourced, which I still believe to be the endgame of how this market eventually develops, even though AFAIK I'm still the only person that ever used that time-limited model on an actual project, which is mentioned in the article's prologue.  Such open-sourcing happens in an ad-hoc manner right now, where a company will develop a proprietary module for a mixed codebase and then eventually open-source it if they feel like it:
>
> http://www.brianmadden.com/opinion/Samsung-contributes-KNOX-to-Android-Open-Source-Project-Is-this-the-end-of-Android-Fragmentation
>
> My time-limited model makes sure all source is made open eventually, once the developers have been paid for their work.
>
> As for the other paid work you mention, I'm actually not a very experienced D dev, probably about intermediate level.  I did take some assembly language programming classes back in my college days decades ago, so I was able to figure out the low-level details needed to get D working on Android.
>
> I'm sure you can find much better D devs to contribute such work by posting bounties on the D or ldc bountysource pages:
>
> https://www.bountysource.com/teams/d https://www.bountysource.com/teams/ldc-developers
>

I was surprised to see a gdc bounty page.  I was even more surprised that the one notable bounty is an issue that's either blocked by Walter, or waiting on someone to implement array op templates in druntume/object.d. :-)

On 2 February 2018 at 09:56, Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 02:04:07 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 31 January 2018 at 08:43:46 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> My time-limited model makes sure all source is made open eventually, once the developers have been paid for their work.
>>>
>>
>> This deceptive hybrid model (based I my understanding of it per the description above) is really offensive to those of us who understand the concept of open-source, and the benefits that flow from it.
>>
>> You (not you personally - I mean the person implementing such a hybrid model) lure people in with free open source, then, when something is found to be wrong with it, you make them wait for the fix.. until.. .. .. your ransom has been paid.
>>
>> Utterly offensive (the model that is).
>>
>> Open source means just that ...  Open source - It's turtles all the way down.
>>
>> Ransom-ware is something very different.
>
>
> Except it's none of those things, as you yourself grasp that it's a "hybrid model," ie not purely open source.  So it cannot be deceptive, offensive, or ransom-ware, since it's perfectly clear that it's its own thing.  And that mixed model is pretty much the way all software is built these days, including the linux kernel as mentioned earlier in this thread, so you are clearly using such mixed software too, just by the fact that you posted in this thread.
>
> So given that all your claims are easily logically proven to be nonsense, there's no point in going any further.

I'm reminded of airlines who have a "Priority" or "Privileged" queuing system at the gate.  If you didn't want to wait in line to board, then you should have paid up.

Not sure if any parallels ring with you here. :-)

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 08:56:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>
> So given that all your claims are easily logically proven to be nonsense, there's no point in going any further.

You need to do better than that to convince me ;-)

Now.. I might entertain a model of paying someone, *after* they had committed there fix back to the community, as open source (and the fix has been formely approved and confirmed) - but certainly not beforehand.

But even that really worries me, as people may then refuse to contribute unless they know they're going to get paid. And, it assumes that people in that open source community project have the means to pay them. What happens to that open source community when the funds are not there?? Do the developers just go off and look for other projects that do have funds, like they were 'bounty' hunters. Is that the future we should be creating?

Your so called hybrid model, is like my neighbour borrowing my lawn mower, and while he's got it, he notices it needs an oil change, does the oil change, and then refuses to give me back the lawn mower till I've reimbursed him. But he never paid for the lawn mower did he??

Well.. my neigbour says, if you can't pay me for the oil, then I'll take the new oil out, put the old oil back in, and then you can have your lawn mower back.

I don't want neighbours like that.

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 09:26:51 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 31 January 2018 at 09:43, Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure you can find much better D devs to contribute such work by posting bounties on the D or ldc bountysource pages:
>>
>> https://www.bountysource.com/teams/d https://www.bountysource.com/teams/ldc-developers
>>
>
> I was surprised to see a gdc bounty page.  I was even more surprised that the one notable bounty is an issue that's either blocked by Walter, or waiting on someone to implement array op templates in druntume/object.d. :-)

Heh, the lead gdc dev doesn't know that gdc bounties exist, not sure I could have made my case for their being hidden any better. :)

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 09:30:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I'm reminded of airlines who have a "Priority" or "Privileged" queuing system at the gate.  If you didn't want to wait in line to board, then you should have paid up.
>
> Not sure if any parallels ring with you here. :-)

Any system that requires payment can be superficially compared to any other, but the real salient point here is the discrepancy: to even get on the flight, you have to pay for a ticket, whereas he paid nothing for the open-source sections of a mixed codebase.  So, he's more like a guy who shows up at the gate without a ticket _and_ barges into the Priority queue, which is a sure way to get thrown out of the airport altogether. :D

And I have no problem with priority queues, baggage fees, etc., as the reason they charge for those is to _lower_ the ticket price for the cheapest consumer, a concept called price discrimination (and before I get the usual nonsense about how that's illegal, or it should be, it isn't and it shouldn't):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

So I pay less for my cheap flights, while others who want to lug a ton of suitcases or get through the line faster pay more, which is only fair.

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 09:50:32 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
> On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 08:56:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>
>> So given that all your claims are easily logically proven to be nonsense, there's no point in going any further.
>
> You need to do better than that to convince me ;-)

I wasn't trying to convince you.  I pointed out that your statements were a mess of logical contradictions and suggested that we stop there.

> Now.. I might entertain a model of paying someone, *after* they had committed there fix back to the community, as open source (and the fix has been formely approved and confirmed) - but certainly not beforehand.
>
> But even that really worries me, as people may then refuse to contribute unless they know they're going to get paid. And, it assumes that people in that open source community project have the means to pay them. What happens to that open source community when the funds are not there?? Do the developers just go off and look for other projects that do have funds, like they were 'bounty' hunters. Is that the future we should be creating?
>
> Your so called hybrid model, is like my neighbour borrowing my lawn mower, and while he's got it, he notices it needs an oil change, does the oil change, and then refuses to give me back the lawn mower till I've reimbursed him. But he never paid for the lawn mower did he??
>
> Well.. my neigbour says, if you can't pay me for the oil, then I'll take the new oil out, put the old oil back in, and then you can have your lawn mower back.
>
> I don't want neighbours like that.

I can't be bothered to strain through your tortured analogies that make no sense and explain to you all the ways you're wrong.  I'm respecting you enough to point out that none of your points make any sense, most would just ignore crazy analogies like this and move on, content to let you stew in this nonsense.

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 10:21:35 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> I can't be bothered to strain through your tortured analogies that make no sense and explain to you all the ways you're wrong.  I'm respecting you enough to point out that none of your points make any sense, most would just ignore crazy analogies like this and move on, content to let you stew in this nonsense.

Well, that sure is an interesting way of responding to criticism.

By giving up, you've made your argument ever weaker that it was before.

But all power to you..and you're hybrid 'ransom the open source community' model ...just don't work on my projects, unless your contribution is free.