Symphony.

i don’t see the point in continuing.

I am fighting against Airlock who are never going to agree with me, whatever the point may be.

I don’t believe that you can charge a funding cost for something that is 90% developed, and is going to be released for free. End of, that is what I feel.

I do however believe that you should be able to license your extensions out for commercial use for a fee. Because you have an end product. Something someone can see and decide if it’s worth the money or not. Now I may pay for some funding for an extension to be created by someone. But I don’t know:

1. How much of the extension has already been developed prior to me funding it.
2. Whether or not that person is going to be developing it.

The reason is that the person I fund could well have developed an extension anyway, and once receives the funding, then decides to release it. Even though no actual development took place after I funded it. The fact that he/she has already put work in is irrelevant to me, because I see funding as like an ongoing project, not purchasing an end product.

I am fighting against Airlock who are never going to agree with me, whatever the point may be.

Huh? Please elaborate; I’m not sure I understand where your hostility comes from.

I don’t believe that you can charge a funding cost for something that is 90% developed, and is going to be released for free. End of, that is what I feel.

Well I’m telling you that you can, and that it happens all the time.

Regardless, what we’re thinking about doing here (within Symphony’s development community) is providing a donation function against extensions in the immediate term. Whether or not we open this out to support wider funding options remains an open question.

I am fighting against Airlock who are never going to agree with me, whatever the point may be.

I disagree. I may work at Airlock, but I’m not alone in saying a fair chunk of my Symphony experience and extensions are done either in my own time or for side projects.

I don’t believe that you can charge a funding cost for something that is 90% developed, and is going to be released for free.

But it does happen. I don’t mean getting to 90% and declaring “I need £££ before I am going to finish this”, but getting to 90%, somebody else really needs to make use of your work, and is prepared to pay for it to be finished off to a potentially higher standard and to meet a deadline.

Am I right in saying your beef lies not in the concept of paying for extension or development work, but the subsequent release of the code once complete? I personally don’t care either way, it’s up to the funder to decide whether it should be open-sourced afterwards. I think it’s as simple as that. I think the issue of whether or not code exists before funding a project is a moot point.

I’m not sure what else can be said on the matter — simply a difference of opinion.

I am fighting against Airlock who are never going to agree with me, whatever the point may be.

That statement unfairly judges Airlock for being irrational, spiteful people. If you present a good case for your views, there is no reason to disagree with you.

Seems like I may be completely misinterpreting things, but if you could clarify one some of what you said, it’d help.

Here’s what you said:

I don’t believe that you can charge a funding cost for something that is 90% developed, and is going to be released for free.

It’s clear here that you’re against funding for something that is mostly developed and then released free later. We won’t debate the merits of your opinion – you’re entitled to it.

However, you’re next point:

The fact that he/she has already put work in is irrelevant to me, because I see funding as like an ongoing project, not purchasing an end product.

Here you say having code ‘mostly developed’ is irrelevant to you and also you perceive funding as more of a investment on the project.

So to clarify, are you for or against?

That statement unfairly judges Airlock for being irrational, spiteful people

We are irrational, spiteful people… just don’t judge us for it :)

Wow 3 guys from Airlock all disagreeing with me. Sorry, made me chuckle a bit.

No need to get defensive, it’s just I happen to have this conversation with people outside of this community and they don’t disagree with me.

Anyway…

I don’t agree with funding something that I don’t know how far down the development process it is. That is my opinion.

I am in contact with a major investor in the states and he would never invest in a project unless he knew how much development has occurred and how much more time would be needed to reach an end goal. But because majority of people working in this industry are working independently there is scope for misuse by deception.

@Joseph,

How much should I donate?

I’m going to turn this thread around and make it productive. People, feel free to join in. Amidst the battle zone, there have been some useful and interesting points thrown about like rival monkey gangs flinging…bananas at each other.

So let’s put those points in question:

1. Should all extensions be released as open source or should this be up to the developer?
2. When money is on the table, does this hinder or encourage development?
3. Who decides on features?
4. How long must a developer be responsible for the future support of the extension? How would funding factor into this?

I have my answers to these questions, but I won’t post them until other’s have jumped in.

Ok, fair enough. For the record though, I don’t blame anyone siding with colleagues - it’s natural, and I would probably do the same. But I am controversial, that is just my nature - and I have strong beliefs on certain things. Anyway.

1. Good question. I would normally say up to the developer, but as the base system is Open Source, than perhaps the extensions should be also.
2. Money adds in incentives. It also can dilute the passion. Depending on the person involved - if I was a millionairre and doing this for the passion than I wouldn’t be bothered about the money, however if it’s putting bread on the table than its always nice to get financial rewards.
3. Again depends on how the extension is being handled. If someone has come in and asked for an extension to be developed then he should get a say, but ultimately it has to be the client/the demand.
4. Until it goes beyond a point release? Perhaps? Maybe the original developer always needs to have some kind of responsibility until it gets to the point where he/she is responsible for none of the current code.

Good questions, answers are very subjective though. Too many factors to give simple yes or no replies.

Continuing the tradition of being productive:

I am in contact with a major investor in the states and he would never invest in a project unless he knew how much development has occurred and how much more time would be needed to reach an end goal.

Absolutely right. This is common due diligence for investors to know these things. So you would expect funding Symphony extensions to adhere to the same thing.

A developer should notify to the public how much existing work has been done and how much more work is required to complete it.

Perhaps you would argue, “but how do I know the developer is telling the truth?” But this is the same problem any investor would face.

Now, assuming that we’re going with the pooled fund approach, the main difference here would be that an investor can choose who to invest, whilst extension funding goes into a pool and the community decides what to invest.

Going back to Nick Toye’s sticking point about deceptive developers, let’s assume the absolute worst:

Every single developer are deceiving and they don’t tell the truth about pre-existing progress.

Obviously, for evil developers’ plans to work, the community must never know about their secret extension stash. That means, the whole world doesn’t know about it. In fact, as far as the world is concerned, these extensions never existed.

So what would the consequence of the above result in? The deceptive developers would continue to deceive. More money than the developer deserved would be given but the extensions are released.

Now, let’s examine the same assumption where the world is filled with deceptive developers but this time, without an extension funding movement. Clients will continue to ask developers to make extensions on their own behalf as they do now. Deceptive developers will lie about their extension stash and end up costing the client the full development price for the extension but the client will as per the client’s request get the extension they needed.

In either of those scenarios (assuming the worst in people), it’s not a whole lot of difference compared to the best case scenarios.

In fact, if you threw away the knowledge that developers keep secret extension stashes, this is exactly as if all extensions are funded at development day zero.

Wow, ok.

Would I create a template and sell to a client, and then use the same template with a minor change and sell it to another client for the same price? of course I would.

Would I sell it to the same client for the same price? of course I wouldn’t.

I’m not being deceptive to the point of evil, but I am taking advantage of a clients trust if I tried to sell them something that I had already sold them but for more money.

NickToye: Please, please don’t turn this into an attack on you. I’m trying my absolute best to keep this thread productive and useful.

I am agreeing with you and examining the effects of a hypothetical scenario that if all developers are deceptive, what would the outcome be. My point is, not a whole lot!

Please tell me you see that!

@Allen,

I wasn’t - I really wasn’t even thinking about it.

I was talking in the third person. When I said about being deceptive to the point of evil.

Well of course I don’t see it as being that drastic. And I understand where your coming from. Just personally I would not feel comfortable paying for something that I know for can very well be created without a moralistic aura.

I also understand it’s a Dog Eat Dog world, and we have to get what we can in order to survive. But in this plateau of Symphony wonderness and XSLT magic, I would like to think that we can be honest in our dealings and not bite the hand that feeds us.

No point did my scenario said anything about being evil. All my scenario stated was that, all developer lied about development progress.

Edit: I lied, I actually used the word evil somewhere but that’s really not the point. Point is, all lying development population results in much the same as all honest development population.

No point did my scenario said anything about being evil. All my scenario stated was that, all developer lied about development progress.

I never said it did. I was just coming back with my own take on the overall argument, it wasn’t a direct response to your statement.

I knew I read evil somewhere. :)

I actually don’t think any good can come from any deceptive developers. I have worked in the past with a lad who brought down a whole agency by being deceptive, this was within an agency - he was earning 50k a year with benefits, completely conned everyone who worked there, I joined and I saw him for who he was, I soon quit because of him, and the company folded about 3 months later.

I’m not being deceptive to the point of evil, but I am taking advantage of a clients trust if I tried to sell them something that I had already sold them but for more money.

We’re talking about two things here: IP and labour cost in hours. It is important to distinguish between the two.

@NickToye: your argument assumes no intrinsic value in the products you are developing. This is fine and valid method of operating; we sell time as an agency. However there are many occasions where the sum of the work to get to a point where it is possible to deliver to client is great. In these instances a level of intrinsic value should be set against the IP in order to recoup the initial investment. This may mean that you would sell the same item to the same client twice. And at the same price.

I also understand it’s a Dog Eat Dog world, and we have to get what we can in order to survive. But in this plateau of Symphony wonderness and XSLT magic, I would like to think that we can be honest in our dealings and not bite the hand that feeds us.

You must agree that so far every extension developer had been honest and also contributed to more good than bad right?

I also wouldn’t feel comfortable paying for something I know could be created without a moralistic aura, as you put it. However, most things you pay for falls under that category. You buy a shirt and you can’t be certain that child labour wasn’t involved or if you buy a mobile phone and you can’t be sure if your retailer sold you a second hand.

You simply have to do your research and at some point have trust.

Yes of course, I was just investigating the possibilities of funding and I just don’t see how it would work, unless perhaps an investor was brought in, but then he/she would like to see some kind of financial return.

Now at Airlock you have all the tools available to you, you seem to have a half decent development team. ;)

So I would expect that this kind of issue would not be one. But for an independent designer/developer it would be.

Also because you have an in-house team who can be monitored, and as you pay a salary I presume, or whoever is in charge does. So you can keep your overheads at a fixed level.

Not so easy for the independent ones.

I think I agree with the idea of an investor needing to know what has been done and what is left to be done on a project. It’s important to know that there will be a return on that investment. That return could be money or finished product.

As a client hiring a developer to solve a problem, I take a different view. If I need to accomplish X and I agree on a price to get X, then it makes no difference to me if the developer has already done the work. I’m getting what I paid for on time and the developer makes a living.

I tend to think of developing extensions for Symphony as being similar to the latter point. I need X functionality and it doesn’t exist at the moment. I pay a developer to create it and my problem is solved. It really doesn’t matter to me if the extension is later released for free. I got what I needed on time and at a price I was willing to pay.

This, to me, sounds a lot like the first iPhone debacle. It was worth the price until Apple dropped it $200. Then people felt cheated. I can understand the reaction, but it really isn’t rational. If it wasn’t worth the initial price to you, then you wouldn’t have bought it.