[evdawg]

At the risk of leaving a 'negative' comment:

This is dangerously close (for lack of a better word) to spec work. You might get paid, based on a vague specification (I want something like x.com! Features? Just look at x.com!)

The author wants it all but offers very little. It HAS to be completed FAST (first team gets the cash!), and it has to be polished ("This is not to be a 'botch' job, I want something that's production grade"). ANY HN'r should know that FAST and POLISH do not go together.

To add insult to injury, you have to hand over all your copyright. Yeah right!

For the reasons above (low budget, no formal specifications, handing over all copyright, and risk of not being paid whatsoever), I really think that if you participate you ARE being taken advantage of.

[jacquesm]

Nobody said it would have to be done fast, but if there are multiple people that will go and do this then there is a chance that if you move too slow that you'll miss out. That is also why I thought it fair to offer the possibility of listing those that plan on working on this so that people could collaborate rather then compete. I thought it would be fair to mention that in case someone thought they would be able to go and do this and come back in 12 months time. By then most likely someone will have solved it. But I don't impose a time limit.

Polished as in: if you think that presenting a pile of junk tomorrow morning is going to pass muster then no, that's not the intention.

The copyright is as far as the transaction is concerned the moment at which payment takes place. I'm not paying this as a private individual, I'm paying it through a corporation and if I want to make a payment there has to be something on the the balance sheet to cover for that. Because the final product is to be open sourced that should not matter, correct me if I am wrong here why there is a practical reason why that is bad. Another good reason is to make sure the code actually does get released under the GPL, and that there will not be suddenly double licensing tricks or other nasty gotchas.

If you feel that you are or might being taken advantage of, then please do not do this, that's not the intention and that's definitely not where I want to take this.

Rather the opposite, I have some money - not a whole lot - and a whole pile of ideas that I would like to see come to life as open source projects. If you feel that you do not want to get paid but you want to make this project come to life as an open source offering then of course that would be an even bigger advantage to me, I figured that by offering a reasonable bounty on this the chances of seeing it becoming a reality would increase.

I take it you are not interested ;)

If instead of just negative stuff you would like to contribute ways in which I could make the offer better then I would be most grateful.

[ivanstojic]

Let me get this straight...

- You want indefinite time to test a product which is loosely specified, effectively leaving developers of good solutions screwed if someone posts a better solution in the meanwhile - Yet you want everyone to rush on it because only the first accepted solution gets paid for, and - You actually you want them to invent wheels, hot water and sliced bread (no frameworks)

To add insult to injury, you want to protect yourself from people who want to earn quick money, while treating developers as a potential source of double licensing and nasty gotchas.

Or did I misunderstand you?

[jacquesm]

> Or did I misunderstand you?

Apparently, yes.

Nobody needs to rush, it is just that I think it is only fair that if someone completes the job they get paid and I only need one implementation, not 10. So I encourage people to collaborate rather than to work independently, but they're free to do so if they want.

That's also why I offer to list contact info for those busy on the project.

I want to protect myself from people who just go for the cash without any basic q&a because it will mean that a serious contender will not get a fair chance.

[aristidb]

I do not think his posting should be considered negative. It pointed out very valid concerns.

One way you might make your offer more attractive without paying more or compromising quality might be lifting the restriction to PHP 4.

[falldowngoboom]

PHP4 end of life was at the end of 2007. I don't think you'd lose many users for requiring php5. (sorry couldn't reply to the correct nested comment)

[jacquesm]

That's a good argument, I thought it was still a supported version. Thank you, I will amend the article.

[jacquesm]

For maximum use I think PHP4 is the sweet spot, it's more than enough to build a relatively simple project as this and it would help to not require people to upgrade to the latest and greatest version of PHP if they happen to have a slightly older installation.

Personally I can't stand it when for a simple module I have to go and make changes to a system that is already working, and I can imagine that people would want to take this and integrate it as a module in their own website.

If there are really urgent reasons why PHP5 would be the only acceptable platform for something like this then I'm open to that but current+previous major release seem to be a good place to be in terms of installed base.

[TamDenholm]

Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick two.