This text dates back to 1998, and no longer reflects my opinions on the software industry (which now boil down to "don't stress over things the market doesn't demand"). I'm leaving it here until I find a better home for it.
I believe that, in principle, Free Software (also known as Open SourceTM Software) is a Good Thing. Using GNU Emacs, and learning how it came to exist, convinced me of that nearly ten years ago. I depart from Richard Stallman's vision in that I'd much prefer society to reward me for writing code, rather than supporting, customizing, or integrating it. It'd be a shame if every programmer needed a day job doing something else, or had to go find some organization with unique needs that's wealthy enough to support the meeting of them.
So I've decided on a compromise that might become a workable business model, and provide incentive for the creation of general-purpose Free Software. Sometime next year, I'll start selling typical binary-only shareware. But I'll announce a "ransom," based on the work that went into it, just as if it were a work for hire for the whole community. Once my gross income on it reaches the ransom amount, I'll free the source.
Some of the issues I've realized I need to consider are:
I'm suggesting hoarding my work (temporarily) even though I know why I shouldn't. Will the community see this as a good practical step or an outrage? Should I stop selling binaries for my version if free derived works become available?
How should the source be licensed when released? GPL doesn't quite seem fair, as it would prohibit others to offer derived works as ransomware. Should I allow proprietary, closed-source derived works? (Their authors may have paid in part for my own work.) If not, can a license distinguish those from real ransomware with reasonable, though unmet, conditions?
Will people pay for this? Shareware is commonly thought to be vastly under-licensed compared to its user base. Even if I make the registered version more useful than an evaluation copy, would extra attention from OSS advocates outweigh the added "why pay when it'll be free" factor? Will the ransom be reached more quickly if I make a big deal out of it or downplay it?
Can I announce how close the total is to the ransom, or would nobody pay knowing the source will be released soon? Should I give extra perks to those last few pre-release customers? Will people believe me, or will they think I'm just claiming to be on the bandwagon (I have no real reputation to speak of) and expect me to escrow the source and be audited?
Thanks for your attention. I would welcome any feedback on this scheme - please mail ransomware@jrandom.com if you have ideas I should consider. I plan to bring this up on Usenet in gnu.misc.discuss when I've thought it out more, but I wanted something now to put a pointer to on Slashdot.
J. Random Software homepage (such as it is).