From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-31 14:31:08
Anthony Williams wrote:
> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>If we have some kind of estimate
>>>of how expensive it would be to develop the library, it might turn out
>>>that 100-200 willing companies would be enough fully fund the initial
>>>The website could show then show a bar indicating how close to
>>>funding we where.
>>Boost.org is not going to get into this area, at least not without
>>undergoing a total transformation of the way we operate. There are
>>just too many problems here, such as how to manage the funds and how
>>to choose who they're given to, not to mention the fact that Boost
>>then would have to become an organization with some legal standing.
> At first look, I like Thorsten's idea. If we could find some way to allow
> companies to spend just a little amount, in support of a specific library, and
> we could find enough companies willing to make such a contribution, then we
> could make it work.
I vividly remember many Amiga games where developed after a similar
model. After presenting some demo and/or screenshot of the game in
progress, the team would wait until they had confirmation that, say 500
people would buy the game.
I personally think, however, that that model was to insucure for the
> As you say, the problem is deciding who does the work, and how much they get
> for it. Your rate might be double mine, but your work might be ten times the
> quality, or you might be done in a quarter of the time (or both!).
The work should be done by whoever is willing to write a contract for
the work. Boost would be a mediator giving trust to those paying and
support to those developing.
Those developing should be willing to spend some extra time on the
effort, some of their spare-time, just like anhybody else not getting
> Once Boost.org starts accepting payment, and paying people to do work, then it
> has to become a proper legal entity, with stricter guidelines on which of us
> are members, rather than just the random assortment of developers we are at
> the moment.
Right. I kinda imagined that Boost would be a mediator, ensuring
quality, support and trust into the process.
> That said, if anyone wants to pay me to develop a library for Boost, or to
> discuss setting up such a partnership, I'm listening ;-)
That's the thing: hardly no normal company would sponsor free software
for other companies, we would need to keep the donation small.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk