Subject: Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!? (LONG. COMPREHENSIVE)
From: kragen@pobox.com
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:28:10 -0400 (EDT)

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
> >>>>> "Edward" == Edward J Huff <edward.huff@acm.org> writes:
>     Edward> One possible approach which hasn't been mentioned is "The
>     Edward> Street Performer Protocol."  See
> 
> It's been discussed on FSB, but not in detail.  sourceXchange and
> CoSource.com were/are real-world implementations.  Both were impure in
> the sense that they were more customer-driven than developer-driven.

Cosource is mostly developer-driven, actually.  Both are impure in the
sense that the developer doesn't start working until after they've
received enough pledges.

> SPP suffers from the free rider problem.  Standard economic analysis
> goes back, oh, to the English enclosure movement (1600s) or so.  There
> are standard solutions (Groves mechanism, Vickrey auction) all of
> which depend on (oops) government provision or intellectual property.

So we get to choose between the problems of intellectual property and
the free rider problem.  Neither is great, but in many cases, the free
rider problem is the lesser of the evils.

By the way, as a matter of marketing, I think the SPP should be called
the "jukebox protocol", both because jukeboxes make more money than
street performers and because the analogy is closer.