ok - there are now definitely too many kickstarter posts appearing here. furthermore, why don't all those people on kickstarter not just write their app/programm, without seeking funding. wasn't the whole open source community a product of a lot of people using their spare time to create new software and give it away for free (linus torvalds, etc.). that spirit is somehow lost on kickstarter...
. wasn't the whole open source community a product of a lot of people using their spare time to create new software and give it away for free (linus torvalds, etc.). that spirit is somehow lost on kickstarter...
I agree that all the Kickstarters on here are starting to wear a bit thin, but strongly disagree with the rest of what you said. Listen to yourself: You're complaining that this person doesn't want to work for you for free. How can you possibly feel entitled to that? Remember that old free software mantra: It's like "free speech," not "free beer."
No, that's not what parent is doing. For example, he may prefer they didn't do the work at all. And "for you"? Where does that come from?
Personally, I have no problem with this - in fact, I'm paid to write FOSS - but some people feel uneasy with the commercialization of the work that traditionally belongs to communities of volunteers, and in certain situations I feel the same.
> No, that's not what parent is doing. For example, he may prefer they didn't do the work at all.
He specifically complained about them taking money to do it. I genuinely don't see how you could read that as "I would prefer it if you did not create an embeddable emacs at all." His comment very strongly suggests that he was fine with them doing the work, but he didn't want them to be paid for it.
> Personally, I have no problem with this - in fact, I'm paid to write FOSS - but some people feel uneasy with the commercialization of the work that traditionally belongs to communities of volunteers
I agree, and that's the attitude I'm arguing against. Free software has never been about demanding that people not take money for their troubles. It has often worked out that way for the vast majority of contributors, but I don't see how the unprofitability of OSS development is a good thing. More money going into free software means more free software and quite possibly higher quality free software (since they don't need to be distracted by other work that puts bread on the table), which is good for everyone. I have no problem with somebody like you or the OP taking money in return for making useful software.
thanks for elaborating. yep, I think it's mostly an issue of commercialization of projects where no actual funding is required. but heck, I mean you can always try to get some funding for your side project if you feel like you need it - please, just don't spam our community with it.
That's a myth, anyways. Projects like Linux, LLVM, and Ruby on Rails succeed because companies devote paid staff to working on them, usually because they sell a complementary product or service.
What's the problem with Kickstarter posts, as long as the project being promoted is technically interesting?
If posting links to interesting technical projects that try to gain mindshare with an eye on eventual VC backing is appropriate to HN (and that seems a fairly uncontroversial proposition to me), why would posting links to interesting technical projects that try to gain mindshare with an eye on kickstarter backing NOT be appropriate?
1. Replacing "scratch your own itch" by "scratch somebody else's itch" can be seen as an improvement over the original model.
2. AFAIK, "Kickstarter" does not imply "open source".
3. Even the Linus'es of this world occasionally stop hacking to eat, and food costs money.
Having said that, I think anything including the term "Emacs" is "scratching your own itch". I do not hold this as a paragon example of the usefulness of Kickstarter.
