* © 2019 OpenTeams. All rights reserved.
* https://openteams.com/terms-of-service
Why isn't a project who wants to change the economics of open source, open-source itself? Can you reconsider your licensing choices?
I kind of feel like Patreon and Kickstarter are in the same vein: rent seeking marketplaces that would be better if they were replaced with entirely open source alternatives that belonged to their respective communities. Patreon should be funded via patreon.
If Wikipedia were started today, I worry that it would have ads or be for-profit.
The power of a collective wallet is not something to be taken lightly. Whether it's environmental destruction or divisive politics, I have yet to decide that setting something like this free is for the best interest.
I would like to see an open source license like the GPL that has enforceable, well-defined provisions for environmental protection and human rights.
It seems like to go all the way, a smart contract would need to be used to ensure the transparency that a standard webserver-based infrastructure cannot provide. But credit cards are the standard for online payments so this would put a project in a further category from the start.
We are at the very beginning of our journey and so there are many features to come.
It's open-source, non-profit, and (tries to) fund itself through its own platform: https://en.liberapay.com/Liberapay/donate
Instead of a recurring donation based system, we are creating a marketplace that connects open source software consuming companies to open source consulting and development companies who are proposing fundable roadmaps for new features and maintenance of critical open source software. The KickStarter idea comes from the fact that any person or company can fund the project so that in the future, they can use the software.
The deep social reputation database generated by the OpenTeams’ social reputation network will provide the foundation for proposers to demonstrate their ability to deliver on a fundable project's goals and grant the prospective funders the ability to validate the composition of the team proposed.
We really appreciate your feedback, thank you!
Thank you for your suggestion. We could not agree more with you!