Comment by throw2016 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw2016 | Hacker News Reader

A lot of the Linux bodies with community sounding names like Linux foundation are actually groups of corporate interests. I had looked up some of the people behind these foundations a couple of years ago and they came across as careerists with little connection to Linux, open source or Linux advocacy.

There is nothing wrong with this, but the names of these bodies should reflect their interests. A name like 'Linux Foundation' should be the flagship organization promoting Linux and open source globally as well as user and developer interests. Some thing like 'Linux Industry Group' is a better reflection of the work Linux foundation does.

Ultimately its high time end-users organize some kind of funded entity to support open source projects and protect user interests. Not just one but multiple such bodies. Without that the interests of those funding projects, developers and industry bodies will triumph and you will just have to accept what ever is 'decided' for you.

I think forums like this should also gently encourage all the thousands of startups who dip into the Linux ecosystem pool but do not contribute anything back even after they are successful, sometimes wildly. Github and Redis comes to mind. That doesn't feel right.

Hiring people working on specific open source projects is good, but its not support, its protecting your own interests. Non-conditional funding so they can continue to do their work that you have benefited from is better.

Its like a river, if you keep on taking from it eventually there will be nothing left.

Who will fund it? And if you have startups like Github and Redis funding it, how is that free from the accusations you level at the Linux Foundation?

I am not leveling accusations at Linux foundation, I am just saying the name is not reflective of its interests and to clarify there is nothing wrong with its interests.

Its just end users also need to organize to fund and promote open source. There is a perception these things are taken care of but they are not, most Linux groups are industry bodies.

If Github benefits from Redis and its just one of hundreds of examples then there is a moral case to be made to support it and give back to open source in someway so the stream continues to flow. In this case Github had not even bothered to reach out to the Redis author, so there is something wrong here in how successful startups are engaging and using open source.

Open source developers can create a virtual currency which prints shares for developers who complete work on improving open source software, with the quantity of shares to be issued specified in publicly listed bug bounties and prizes.

Approval of prize proposals and recognition of the correct wallet address of winners can be handle via stakeholder voting among existing currency holders. The currency base can be bootstrapped by recognizing the efforts of volunteer developers who would otherwise be performing work for free.

If an API is then added for transferring and proving ownership of shares, developers will then be able to sell their shares in independent exchange markets for other currencies if there ends up being a demand. Third parties might be interested in buying currency from developers in exchange for cash so they can list prize proposals on the network for completing work on software that benefits them.

This would potentially allow the foundation to indirectly compensate developers without having to raise the funds and hold the cash itself.

> Ultimately its high time end-users organize some kind of funded entity to support open source projects and protect user interests.

Create a virtual currency which mints fresh shares for open source developers who complete public prizes and bug bounties for GPL licensed software. Prizes can be publicly listed and disbursed to the wallet address of the correct winner using stakeholder voting among existing currency holders. The currency base can be bootstrapped by issuing shares to volunteer developers for completing work they would have otherwise done for free.

Add in a mechanism for transferring and verifying ownership of shares between, and developers can potentially sell a portion of their shares for dollars in independent exchange markets, without the central organization having to directly collect revenues and hold cash itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com