[tcaudilllg]

I've been thinking about the question of free software vs. the need for compensation. One needs money to pay for home, vehicle, food, etc. You can't live without it.

On the other hand, some of us (like myself) cringe at the thought of telling someone they cannot use our software because they can't afford to pay for it.

The solution could be "request ware". Request ware would differ from donationware in that the software is implicitly declared "free to use", but with an additional request for payment at the descretion of the user. It differs from shareware in that one is not obligated to pay, only "open to payment."

With request ware, those who cannot afford the software get to use it. Those who can afford the software can pay for it and help the author meet the requirements of living that are necessary to provide the software.

[LeoDraco]

This comment may, quite possibly, be tangential to the topic at hand, but I feel it mildly important to point out that when people refer to "free software," "free" generally implies "as in speech," not "as in beer;" there exist a number of products out there which are free to use, but not free to own, all dependent upon what the user decides to put money in. (Besides all of which, a person buying "free" (as in speech) software is generally buying support for that software, rather than the software itself (which typically is free (as in beer), but entirely sans official support); the RHEL/Fedora Project is a good example of this.)

As to your "request ware" idea: it has been done before, in one guise or another. For example, Azureus is a full featured Bittorrent client, which is available for free (as in beer), with no disabled options; it is at the discretion of the user to donate money to the project.

Then, too, there are various other models which resemble --- admittedly, imperfectly --- your proposal: Nullsoft offers Winamp in two major distributions: free and full, with the only noticable differences being some (honestly not entirely useful) enabled features.
_________________
"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake

[tcaudilllg]

That's a good point on Azureus. However, there is a different relationship between the developer and the user with respect to the request model. Donation is culturally linked to charity, giving by those who have to those who are without. It socially implies software donations as charitable giving.

The request model does not link received payment to charitable giving. There is instead an agreement underwhich payment may or may not be received, at the discretion of the user.

[Bjorn]

A recent article giving another example of compensation for development:

The Value of Free Software