I feel a moral duty to clarify that my proposal back then fell short of what you put forth now, @zkat I was suggesting something for funding authors of copyrightable works in general, not specifically software. the idea of publishing the development ChangeLog did not even cross my mind then, and I find that a lovely piece of enticement and accountability. goodies are good (support on the feature makes sense); early access, I'm not sure; would that be nonfree? I'm also uncertain about the notion of withdrawing funds. my proposal was built upon the notion of eventual convergence, in which total of offers would grow while the ask price could only go down, so they'd eventually meet at a fair point. while withdrawal may be fair, I feel it may be too prone to abuse. perhaps setting a timeout at the time of the offer would enable unfinished offers to be recouped, while offering further incentive for authors to complete the transaction and release (assuming the work is completed)
I like the idea. indeed, it sounds quite familiar. it's very close to something I proposed in a speech at FISL back in July 2010; I'd never heard of crowdfunding, so I called it Social Bargaigning, but an attendant told me about Kickstarter right after it :-)
this works for projects starting from scratch, but also for "feature branches" to add stuff to preexisting projects. the latter, with strong copyleft projects, avoids the potential problem of the development becoming proprietary
I don't know about winning. the struggle for freedom is permanent. as for "we", unless you're a closeted free software supporter, our paths will eventually fork, because open source and free software have different goals. but there's a long way to go before they have to fork, i.e., there's a lot of stuff in which we're both better off cooperating than fighting each other or going our separate ways
funny. minutes after seeing your post, I saw https://diasporabr.com.br/posts/5156620 "There is nothing more dangerous than someone who wants to make the world a better place" -- Banksy
back when I was a grad student in distributed systems, there was this saying about one of the ancient gods of the field that "a distributed system is one in which you can't get work done because a server you've never heard of is down" a lot of the science of distributed systems was meant to make them resilient, tolerant to failures alas, federation pushers embraced the decentralization without any of the fault tolerance. so now we have networks that are never fully functional. yay us :-/
maintenance burden may be understandable. it's kind of acceptable that those who didn't put in resources don't get a say in the development. but that's not really the issue. what I'm getting at is goals and intents that transpired and that I perceived, as I watched it unfold. I've learned to pick up conflicts between narratives and behaviors, and this one was an ugly but shining example of ladder-kicking (while grandpa struggled to climb the ladder, no less), of dismissing interoperability, the health of the broader community and the harm to users to crush a weaker player. after that, it became very hard for me to believe and trust mastodon's developers' commitment to interoperability and respect for fediverse users at large. crushing competitors and striving to become dominant do not inspire confidence in me, and are IMHO not a great fit for an interoperable, cooperating community. we should be fighting the big bad wolves, not each other
Benjamim is a given name (same as Benjamin, but adapted to pt spelling conventions). I'd never seen it used with any meaning other than that kind of adaptor, and I have no clue how that came to be, but wiktionary and wordreference mention another meaning I wasn't aware of: lastborn