Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'll expound on that a little, speaking as one of the people who's worked on dTV (though not so much recently). dTV is a neat app. It's a fun diversion to play with on weekends, and it's something I personally find very useful.
It is not anything close to a living.
The instant we start charging money, we'll be morally obligated to provide at least some minimal level of support. And since charging invites cost/benefit analysis, I quickly conclude that the time I've already put into dTV is worth a lot more than the amount of money we'd collectively make from shareware fees, let alone what any one of us would see.
I haven't looked at dTV sound issues because I have no use for dTV's sound capability (and even if I did, that's not my expertise and I'd probably just stare blankly at that part of the code). That's both the attraction and the downside of a free project like this; all the developers are free to only work on things they find interesting or useful. Money would destroy that aspect of it since we'd be obliged to try to fix people's problems rather than encouraging them to join the team and work on the areas they find useful.
And lets not even get into how the heck you'd manage payouts to a constantly shifting set of developers spanning several continents.
Not to slight John Adcock in any way, but I'm certain dTV wouldn't be anywhere close to as cool as it is today if he'd released it as shareware.
In short, charging money would cost the project way too much.
However! There's nothing to stop some enterprising person from selling dTV support services. Several companies have made money doing exactly that with other GPLed software. While I think dTV's target market is a lot more limited than, say, gcc's, it's not zero. Something to consider, anyway.