I would accept such as a kind of a fee for an service contract. But then it has to be official and a clear statement from Purism for what the money will be used. A kind of feedback is necessary here.
1 Like
Sorry, I was unclear. I’m talking about the hardware-related software specific to Librem 5, i.e., firmware and drivers here (so that calls, WiFi, bluetooth, suspend etc. are flawless). They have to be perfect first, before you can work on the unified things.
3 Likes
It’s not that people on the forum are deniers… it’s the Linux podcasts/blogs that seem to be hypocritical bastards. They don’t own an L5 and when they do get their hands on one, they don’t give it half the effort they give to an Android phone or app review.
This attitude bleeds directly into the more general media when they do articles on user privacy. I recently scorched a lazy author on The Blaze, a site known more for politics/culture/privacy than for hardware/software reviews. 
Not generally my style, but I couldn’t help myself. 
8 Likes
Yes, please do this!
Two things I think would be really important for such a “fund PureOS” campaign to succeed:
(1) Transparency about how much money has been donated so far. Everyone should be able to see that, and to know that whan a large enough amount has been donated then development will happen.
(2) Show clearly when funds have been used, and for what. This does not need to be advanced, it could be statements like “person X worked on issue Y for a week”, and you could point to gitlab issues where more details can be seen about what is going on. (There is already transparency there which is very good, we can see the gitlab issues which is one way we can see that development has now stalled.)
If you (Purism) do it like that, then I would donate a lot. I cannot speak for everyone else but I imagine there is a bunch of other Librem 5 owners who would also put in money if you do it like that.
Note that I’m not saying this only because it’s the right thing to do because transparency is good in general, it’s also that I think you will get more money that way. When it’s immediately clear how the money is used, more people will donate, and they might donate larger sums.
Another reason why I think this would be successful: everybody already knows that the developers you hire are excellent and that they are good at upstreaming and collaborating with other projects in good ways, so there is no question that the money will be well spent and that it will help not only to L5 specifically but also to the wider FOSS ecosystem.
I think if you do a “fund PureOS” campaign in a good way keeping in mind (1) and (2) above, then that will be better than us running some independent wild-west campaign on the side using Liberapay or similar, which was the plan I had otherwise. I would rather donate to an official Purism campaign, if it’s done right, with transparency.
Edit: curious to hear what others think of this, would you donate to such a campaign if Purism did that?
14 Likes
Yes. I want transparency if I’m funding the development. I have to track my progress for my employers to see, so I expect it to be the same other way around.
6 Likes
If there is a way to monitor the cash flow and the results I would consider it.
4 Likes
I would separate the funding in three layers:
- Hardware (e.g. Librem 5 phone)
- Operating system and software infrastructure (e.g. PureOS)
- Apps (e.g. Chatty, Pure Maps, Signal)
Each layer could have a different investment/funding model.
Hardware layer: These investments are closely bound to the manufacturer, here Purism. Potential profits will flow into the company and investors, and they might decide to invest again in Purism. Because this layer is so closely related to the specific SPC Purism, it might be less eligible for funds that target broader than a specific company. If you want to support Purism at this layer, I think the best way is to buy shares via the First Public Offering at StartEngine. I think that hardware specific software (firmware, drivers) belongs at this layer.
Operating system and software infrastructure layer: On top of the hardware comes the operating system and the generic software infrastructure. This layer is not specific to Purism as a company. Purism invested a lot at this layer. Think of phosh. Because this layer is company independent, work on this layer might be funded by more generic funds. I think here for example of the Soveign Tech Fund. But also the above mentioned fund PureOS is an excellent idea. It would be great to have updates like those that the GNOME gives on a weekly basis, especially the Sovereign Tech Fund part.
Apps layer: I think apps should be funded independently of the above layers. An exception might be core apps that are essential for certain hardware to be usable (here I think of e.g. Calls, Chatty and Camera). Several apps already have their total independent funding system. An example of this is Signal. For this layer it would be great if the PureOS Flatpak Repository with donation support became alive. Developing the software for this enhanced Flatpak Repository is part of the infrastructure layer.
My guess is that getting PureOS Crimson ready for the Librem 5 falls mostly in the hardware layer (getting drivers and firmware ready) and partial in the operating system and infrastructure layer.
It would be great if generic work on the operating system and infrastructure layer could be funded independently from Purism, because it it is strengthening digital infrastructure and open source ecosystems in the public interest. And this is exactly the focus of the Sovereign Tech Fund (STF). I hope that the STF will soon be open for new submissions of projects. But also the EU Horizon program might offer funding possibilities. As well as the Dutch NLnet that is seeking project proposals between 5.000 and 50.000 euro.
9 Likes
too complicated I fear. If I see that for crimson we have no plan nor an announcement with dates I fear that the problems are much more fundamental than “some donations”
They need a LOT of money only for realizing Crimson and one more time a lot money to pulish Crimson out to a stable and mainly error-free product.
But without any statement from Purism here we con discuss only in the dark here 
3 Likes
This sounds good but a question that remains is: who should apply? You or I personally? Some organization other than Purism? If not Purism, then which organization would that be?
3 Likes
I think independent developers can apply individually. I’m still reading more details, but this page seems relevant: NLnet; NGI Mobifree Eligibility information
5 Likes
I fear that Purism is not interested in letting external programmers look and know all of their business “secrets”
Maybe I am wrong, but IMO only a organized campaign for internal and transparent use could help here
I think lots of users could support this with mone if it is:
- transparent
- only for the listed goal(s)
- truthworthy
3 Likes
Is there anything to be said for just running PostmarketOS in the meantime?
3 Likes
Have installed:
Postmarketos-stable with plasma-mobile. Looks good at first sight, but no sound in in calls. Have filed a bug
2 Likes
Yeah, I’d have been tempted to try the Phosh version if anything, but interesting to look at the Plasma one too I suppose.
2 Likes
Mobian is probably closer to PureOS
3 Likes
I would be VERY glad having Postmarketos with Plasma Mobile 6 running on the L5
Because I feel somehow that the development on PM-OS may be stronger and faster than for PureOS/Phosh on the L5
2 Likes
I thought that we were talking about funding Crimson development ( Let’s crowdfund some development to get PureOS Crimson ready for L5! )
2 Likes
Absolutely OK, but the apps of phosh cannot be standalone. If they release Crimson the have also to update all updates that are coming with the phone.
There are a LOT of things to do there… Lot of time an lot of money needed.
Think only about suspend, modem reliabilty, VoLTE, energy consumption and it will be clear that there is a lot of work for Purism
2 Likes
That is why I wrote:
I tried to suggest where you can get funding for which layer.
2 Likes