I don't disagree, but perhaps you should re-read that whilst comparing with writing and releasing the application in the first place.

The source is available, and the Community SSU now gives us a mechanism to deploy that change. It's a nice self-contained thing if someone wants to work on it, and I've even sketched out some thoughts as to how it could work.

Sorry, it was unclear what your question was; or really why it required Council attention: the Council have no budget, nor time, nor are they the arbiters of everything which gets done in the Maemo community. Do something, then ask the Council to help promote it or put you in contact with the people who can help your concept go further.

Nokia has the technology (used by Ovi Store) to provide a payments-only system for donations (like paypal). Then people can donate by carrier billing or however is supported in their country...

I think that this is a really interesting thread...

I can say that I collected zero euros from FastSMS with donations but my application had more than 80.000 downloads...
I do it for "play", but I think that thinking that all on Maemo MUST be free is a big mistake...

I think also that one possible way could be: you get the base version for free, if you want advanced features you have to pay.

There's the option of trying something like kickstarter.com. The developer could say something like "I've developed code to do XYZ and if I can raise ABC amount of money, I'll release it under the GPL and it will go into the official repositories."

There's also the possibility of "if I raise ABC amount of money I will develop XYZ". It'd be cool for a developer to know there is enough interest in a project before spending a lot of time developing only to find out only a few people are willing to donate.

I went and read a lot of the correspondence you linked to and
from what I see there are a lot of good ideas and intentions mooted.

Between the first point in your post and the end point there is a big gaping hole
in the way just about everyone perceives the situation.
And this is why this "Bad Idea" continues to be suggested.


TMO is what? You are absolutely correct - it is not and cannot be a CMS.

But what exactly is TMO ?

Not in some syrup-glossed generalizations,
but as a mechanical description:

It is a place where users can discuss the software?
It is a place where developers can get feedback about the software?

Both of the above - or neither - or what?

Just another forum for bs and people to say spurious things?
A semi-interactive facebook-Blog for Maemo junkies?


Is it just a PR front for Nokia's Maemo effort ?
perhaps it was originally intended to be to some degree,
but it obviously has evolved into something a bit more involved.

I propose that the difference between CMS as the industry views it

- a dry as bones add this, document that, report this bug, patch it here,
recompile there and historify everything

- and what we and the developers and the users need is something very different than that simplistic function.


What part of the near-real-time forum feedback on developing application
should not be considered to be part of the CMS ?
We are watching full-blown applications spring up and be debugged
in a matter of a few days at a pace that runs 24hours a day
by the collusion and collaboration of a lot of different people
who are not all 8-5 suit-and-tie desk jockeys.
They aren't even being paid to do such things - they do it because they want to.
And they will talk and do all of the messy things humans do that
seem to be so improperly organized when you bring such a party to the table.

CMS systems used as CMS systems produces and constrains
a software development environment that leads to
development dragging out over months and years.
It does that because the very idea was developed by people
who could not even imagine 'community development'
and whose only benchmark was that software development
should consume months if not years of teamwork.

That is not what you see here and it is all because of TMO!

If Maemo remains fettered to traditional ways that
'everyone knows it should be like this - that's the way its always done'
then the participants are condemned to missing out on a lot of possibilities.

I will not argue that TMO become a CMS,
but I would simply like to point out that the rift between those who
seek standard answers to a very unstandard situation
and those who say TMO should be the framework need
to a lot more out-of-the-box thinking and examination
of what could be done to integrate the two (actually three) issues.

That garage - downloads - (and the wiki) are such a disjointed
and uncooperatively organized affair only contributes to a lot of this.

That there is plenty of room to make an _optional_ developer fund-button
in some manner not obligating the Maemo host is obvious,
but how to do it will need some cooperation.

Good luck with all that

Thanks Jaffa, a competent answer to my incompetent question. ( I promise I did try google first).
If I get some spare time I will have a more detailed look at the source code. However, from the thread you linked it seems that what I had thought was a relatively trivial issue actually opens up a hornets nest of other things I had not considered.

Wow! I am impressed once again! Forty-nine votes in the poll was more than I expected. But that isn't what impressed me. The quality and thoughtfulness of the posts was what got my attention.

Thanks for participating. Let's be sure to support our developers!