My wife and I went through something like this a few years ago when
deciding to finish our garden simulator and then release it as open
source. That was six person-years of effort and sacrifice.
Except for some advertising / resume value, we never received
a dime for any of that work (in fact, it still costs us money
each month to make it available.)
At the time, we were especially disheartened by a rejection letter
from the NSF for a grant pre-proposal saying basically "just sell
it". Obviously part of the problem was our grant "sales" pitch
and communication skills, but another part of the problem
is the lagging pace of community awareness of new ideas -- especially
among conservative PhD academics who decide about most grant making.
Five to ten years from now funding open source projects by the NSF
or such will be common place -- and then all the sharp marketers
out there (rarely the Dougs of the world) will get most of the the
funds to do stupid things that sound good or reinvent things the
Dougs of the world suffered to create years earlier. (The book,
"The Seven Laws of Money" by Michael Phillips has a chapter
on why most grants go astray.) The hope is in the 5% of funding
that accidentally falls into the right hands (against the best
efforts of institutional conservatism to prevent it or ignore it
or not understand it) like when J.R. Licklider gave money to Doug
in the 1960s.
The reason for this is that almost all the useful projects help
humanity, but it is a strong part of human nature to help yourself
or your local group -- and often those two things are at odds
(even when you work for a government or the UN or World Bank).
The one that usually wins is helping yourself. The creation of
large immortal corporations helping themselves only makes this funding
competition more difficult. For example, a government grant could
go to fund an idealistic open source programmer for a year, or
instead produce a 5% profit for a company making proprietary
software. Guess who is in a better position to "buy" the grant
with smoozing and lobbying and displaying a "track record"
and "qualified professionals" by having PhDs on staff.
This isn't helped by the push nowadays for every grantee to
become self-funding, so if you can't prove you will turn the
grant into a perpetual revenue stream, you probably won't get
it (and this in software means making proprietary stuff).
Also, the "peer review" process only works to fund typical
work done in a way everyone accepts. Anything really new will fail
the peer review process. The originator will starve and move onto
other things, and years later the idea is "in the air" and
typically a reviewer unconsciously remembers the idea and
gets funded for proposing it. The work is then carried out
without the full wisdom or context of the originator, and so
it is weakened and likely fails to produce a wholistically
integrated result. I've heard of this happening many times --
and I do not mean to imply any deceit or ill will on any of the
reviewing parties. This is perhaps the nature of social
consensus building -- but it is made worse by the increasingly
narrow specialization of academics and their "departments" /
compartments, which everyone abhors but no one seems to be able to
Sometimes you just got to do what you think is right -- like we did
deciding to finish our garden simulator in the hopes some people
somewhere would learn how to grow their own food in a more
sustainable way from it (or at least, that others might make it into
such). I've spent the last couple of years paying for it in interest
& principal though! That's only money, but it's probably also delayed
or prevented us having children. I just shockingly realized on Sunday
that (no joking) in a way I have already [in a "pact with the devil"
sort of way] given my first (never-to-be)born child to open source
type projects. :-( But there are plenty of people who have given
more than that for causes they believed in -- be it "racial equality"
or "democracy" or "disarmament" or "ecology".
I think of the choice as deciding among "the many scales of self".
You've got to decide at each point in time what scale of self (body,
family, organization, ecosystem, nation, Gaia, universe) you are going
to be "selfish" for. Sometimes that means sacrificing the levels below.
(Note this is made more complex by multiple overlapping entities on
the same level -- like belonging to a church and a company and a
lodge -- and sometimes having to choose between them).
The world is full of people who volunteer -- teaching illiterate adults
to read, giving blood, or raising foster children. It's also full of
people giving money to flood victims or funding foundations. There is
enough slack in there for good things to happen. It may not be happening
with Bootstrap as quickly as one might like, but it is happening
Any of the digital library efforts are heading towards such
things. I especially like the CANIS stuff. "CANIS is developing and
deploying unique analysis environments for large-scale information
retrieval applications based on discipline and community scale
collections." http://www.canis.uiuc.edu/ If I was going to work for
someone and was relocatable, I'd strongly considering joining that
group [I can't easily relocate because of elderly parents].
(One important concept the CANIS group looks at is how the
explicit linking concept is sort of obsolete -- in reality dynamic
searches will replace links...)
The good news is if you are good enough to make a major open source
contribution, you are good enough to earn enough working half your time
(in many month clumps) as a contractor to buy your own time (in other
many month clumps). It would be nice if there was a better alternative,
but the other possibility is competing for grants -- and good luck if
you don't have the right PhD and the right connections (and lots of
supported time to write the grants). The other possibility is to find
the sharp marketers with the right PhDs and hot connections and work for
them for half to a third (or less) of what you might get in industry.
But that is still better than the lot many people on this planet have
in life. Marvin Minsky bemoans the fact he can't get good graduate
students because anyone good can earn $100K+ in industry vs $20K
as a grad student. (The pyramid scheme of PhD granting academia
coming to a brutal end is perhaps another reason in my opinion. :-)
On PhD career issues and career half-lives:
This is a not-quite-fair assessment of Bootstrap/Augment and its funding
history but basically as it seems to me based on what I have read:
Doug had a great vision similar to a few other visionaries of his
time (specifically, Vannevar Bush [Memex - 1950s]
and J.R. Licklider and even Theodore Sturgeon in the story "The Skills
of Xanadu" and also Ted Nelson http://www.xanadu.com/ ).
Doug got funding from Licklider when Lick was at Darpa and through the
help of several bright technical people realized a prototype of that
vision -- something beyond anything of the time, and perhaps in a way
still beyond us now in some ways. (Read the licklider article I posted
the URL for http://www.techreview.com/articles/jan00/waldrop.htm to see
how Lick funding also created pretty much all the other CS greats of the
1970s & 1980s). His was the 5% of funding (see above) that got
misdirected to do something useful -- first trickled to Lick, and then
to Doug. Then that funding was cut off as Lick left Darpa and
because Doug is a visionary more than a marketer things floundered.
What followed was a typical short-sighted business scenario at Boeing.
The only surprise there is that Augment got as far as it did.
Doug got recognized decades later after many hard and wearying struggles
by a $500,000 Lemelson-MIT prize in 1997
but presumably the money ($250K after taxes?) probably (I'm guessing)
went for either previous expenses or for a few years of Bootstrap
operations, or for a trust/investment to support him personally (since
income on that would be say $25K per year -- I heard Stallman did this
last with his $500,000 Macarthur genius award). I wouldn't begrudge
Doug that last choice, and he deserves far better.
Obviously it does seem he could have bought some programmer time with
that prize -- and perhaps he did -- but good/experienced programmers
are expensive (it's typically $200K+ per year [includes overhead]
to have a good programmer in a large organization) and a year's
worth of programming from a random programmer might not have been
the best investment of the funds. Programmer
productivity can easily vary by an order of magnitude and more.
So it made sense for Doug to ensure the tiny amount of money went
towards broadcasting his message of the hope of Bootstrapping.
Unfortunately, getting such a prize probably in a way undercuts his
ability to gain support in some ways (i.e. people probably asks why
doesn't he just pay for the implementation?). He also got some DARPA
money which I guess went into a study.
Basically Doug is focusing much of his effort and the colloquium on
making people aware of global issues and the need for bootstrapping,
which is good, but alas the software aspect got lost somewhat.
[For example, sorry, I kind of lost interest in the webcasts around #5]
I do agree with Doug's points about coevolution of organizations and
their tools, but the tools is the only real leverage point we
realistically have, so that is where I think most of the effort should
go. I also think (sorry Doug) the concept of endless levels of
Bootstrapping is unrealistic given the S-curve nature of most things
and more support might be forthcoming if there was a specific
thing or level being bootstrapped towards.
And it seems to me many people on the list and colloquium have
participated from an organizational and issue perspectives, and not a
coding perspective -- i.e. there is very little coding released.
I like this list as a forum for such (like your own post just now).
I feel that personally I have gotten a lot out of participating in it.
But sadly, the software part has floundered. Perhaps this is because the
spec if essentially a waterfall model -- "code it and they will come"
which daunts a free spirited open source developer. In reality almost
all good software design is iterative -- exposing unknown requirements
in the act of iterations, as in "code it again and some more will come".
And of course, when you don't have much time, there is always the "do"
vs. "discuss" choice.
Jim Spohrer had encouraged me to participate, for among other reasons:
"Doug brings visibility to a project".
In the end I decided to participate based in part on
that. I included the letter I sent Jim first at the end of this note,
showing how there are similar such projects already afoot in various
ways. [Even then, the lack of an open source license or released code
worried me...] I still think it is true that Doug brings visibility to a
project, and he also brings history (which has both good and bad sides).
I think part of the issue is that Doug from what I've read
(not having met him personally) is not and has never claimed
to be an aggressive marketer or pushy-type leader (in a human-leader
sort of sense). Yet, we all look up to him to provide leadership
(fundraising, organization, license commitment) while he probably
looks at us to provide the same!
Unfortunately, the realities of fund raising and legal commitments
require a meeting of minds and some official decisions with legally
binding signatures or licenses. This means inertia. Throw the issue
of funding and decisions about becoming proprietary into this mix,
and it makes it hard to get critical mass for "open source".
Ad Stanford's likely desire to make a profit selling courseware
based on the Colloquium and things get really complicated.
The reality of most open source developments is they start with a
developer (or a few) with some source the make available under specific
Usually the initial developers then shepherd it for some time (years).
That forms the seed from which the effort is bootstrapped. It attracts
people who use it. If the tool attracts enough programmers it grows
(easier if it is a programming tool, less so if it is not.) We don't
have that seed. The Augment code is the most obvious code and it is not
available for various reasons. Even if one had a seed to contribute, the
"permission to use" indemnification clause and the agreement's one-sided
nature would make it legally foolish for one to contribute it.
At this point, the license issue (esp. indemnification) has stopped me
from participating further (in terms of contributing code). Actually, I
was surprised no one commented on my recent post on it. I plan to
continue open source releases on my own related to knowledge
repositories along the lines of stuff I have been working on similar to
William Kent's model in Data&Reality -- but not as part of the "extended
activities of the colloquium" though -- until such license issues are
resolved to my satisfaction. Just settling on X11 / BSD revised might
probably be enough, and moving code development out from under the
"permission to use" indemnifying license (most open source software
comes with NO WARRANTY, yet "the permission to use" license we
agree to by participating means we provide a warranty to Stanford
and BI (and their licensees) for our code contributions).
I write this (somewhat negative towards the current state of affairs)
in hopes that things will perk up. In a way the list is in crisis --
months of participation and no code. This is not good...
Something needs to change -- perhaps starting with the permission
to use indemnification issue... However, being on the East Coast
I haven't attended any of the recent weekly meetings, so I can
only hope there is a coding ferment there not entirely reflected on
the list yet.
In any case, Eric, I know where you are coming from. It is disheartening
to know one has so much to give and cultural circumstances preoccupy
one so as to force one to give it to a "lesser" cause to ensure one's
individual survival. But almost everything worthwhile requires patience,
persistance, hard work, and (unfortunately) sacrifice. Doug is a shining
example of "character" -- and he has suffered for it (and yet,
apparently, not complained too much.)
Too bad we are in a profession where the ergonomics are so terrible a
full day at the office injures a programmer enough they have less
reserve for doing the same elsewhere (as opposed to say 40 hours a wek
of walking around and talking to people -- where you can easily do
another 40 hours a week of the same.)
Developers of custom software and educational simulations
Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator
============== Old Letter to Jim Spohrer ===============
Subject: Bootstrap Intitute
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:13:38 -0500
From: Paul Fernhout <email@example.com>
Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software
I really appreciate your email on this. The Boot strap institue sounds
like a great project, and I would love to work with them.
Certainly good points! And don't get me wrong, I think the Bootstrap
institute is one of the best projects going...
Some context though:
I was interested in BSCW (Basic Support for Cooperative Work)for a
which is sort of the same thing (I think) as OHS in Python. I got an
account on their system a couple years back to try it out. However,
they've moved into the for-profit licensing, and so I lost interest in
using/improving their code. http://bscw.gmd.de/Copyright.html
(Also, their system seems overly complex for first time users.)
Of course, I'm sure Bootstrap is aware of:
(CANIS == Community Architecture for Network Information Systems) which
is a heavily funded effort to support collaborative computing (although
not open source). I know someone who is on that project (Les Tyrell,
also a Squeaker) and he sure is having fun. I'd try to work there except
I'm tied down to the NY area for the moment.
And of course, to a lesser extent:
which sponsors ThinkQuest.
But they are not open source for their toolbase either (although the
results are available in a massive archive of educational material --
I'm not clear on the license for that though).
And an upcoming effort from an owner of VA Linux (though not
This is a really cool open source project for a clinical record and
recall system for community based health care in the developing world:
(since medical records and related decision making are another example
of collaborative computing.)
So, why pick Bootstrap to work with?
After more perusal of their site, I see "Open Source OHS Project":
However, I haven't yet come across a specific license, or a related
content license. But, there's a lot I could contribute on the
presumption it will be some version of open source.
Of course, I think XML is problematic (how do they handle versions of
DTDs?) and I'm still not sold on Java. I'm encouraged they had a client
application a few years back in VisualWorks Smalltalk (a system I know
well and love). However, if they develop clear APIs and well documented
storage techniques, language should not be as much of an issue.
As to your points: working with one of the greatest minds behind the
computer revolution (on par with or beyond Vannevar Bush)
is certainly an exciting prospect. And I think Doug is continuing to
head in the right direction. (I started calling a version of the system
I'm working on "Alexandria".) And I'd certainly like to interact more
As for goals, my model of wealth and security in today's interrelated
world [taken to an extreme :-) ] is that I won't feel wealthy or secure
until everyone around me feels the same way. Since I think gated
communities [or countries] are ultimately ineffectual and rude [see Jane
Jacobs work on cities for what makes a safe community], that means every
person on the planet needs to feel wealthy and secure. That is what I
would like to work towards. At this point, I think a good hope for world
prosperity is through making core knowledge freely available, along with
a somewhat self-replicating technical infrastructure with which to apply
that knowledge. See question 11 of this Final Exam to understand why I
think the two (tools and knowledge) are intertwined:
Anyway, I like where the Bootstrap institute is going. If they want me,
I'd be happy to given them a chance working full-time mostly
telecomuting spending DARPA money on useful stuff that provides a real
defense against "want and ignorance", based purely on their web site,
track record, and stated goals (and "open source" statement). Otherwise,
I'll see what I can do as I have time to contribute to their OHS project
part time on my own.
And I'd love to be conference in on one of those phone calls --
(and I should be in my home office on Friday, or let me
know when and I'll make time.)
Feel free to forward this note to Bootstrap people. I can send a resume
too if they want. Twenty years programming experience, mumble, GPL
garden simulator, mumble, IBM Research, mumble mumble... :-)
Developers of custom software and educational simulations
Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator
Eric Armstrong wrote:
> As a species, I am beginning to wonder if we are capable
> of surviving. Several people have interesting proprietary
> work they want to pursue. I want to be investigating and
> working in this space more than anything, but no one is
> funding any of us.
> Meanwhile, no one wants to give anything away, because their
> only hope for having the freedom to pursue the paths that
> need pursuing is to garner revenue for the purpose. (Even
> when we *do* share, it's harder than hell to reach agreement
> on anything.)
> Doug is adamant that open source is the only way to go. He's
> right, but where does that leave us? At SRI they are talking
> about setting up an open source base technology, and building
> revenue-producing IP on top of that. I was one of the first to
> say, hey, if someone is going to start generating revenue,
> where is mine going to come from? As much as I freely
> contribute design ideas at this stage, as soon as we started
> talking about a tangible product, I felt myself shifting gears,
> looking for my advantage. But do we have time for that?
> I guess my point is: If the problems we face really are that
> pressing, and we as a society cannot identify and free up the
> brains that are capable of finding a solution, then there is
> strong possibility that the solutions won't attive in time.
> Meanwhile, those of us who have something to contribute find
> ourselves lacking either time to do what needs to be done,
> or financial incentive to contribute what amounts to our hope
> for the future (personal future, that is).
> So the question remains: Are we, as a species, in fact capable
> of surviving? Or do personal and societal short-sightedness
> make it unlikely?
Porsche Boxter. You and a friend. Nine dream days from
Napa Valley to Beverly Hills. Provided by CarsDirect.com.
Click to enter.
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 09 2000 - 21:18:14 PDT