Very sad. I had the privilege of taking a class from him at George Mason University, and he was (unsurprisingly) very knowledgeable.
He worked hard to enable software reuse. No one was interested in his idea of trying to monitor component use during runtime to pay developers. That was an unworkable approach, and I told him that then. But the general world of making it easy to reuse components is a reality today, via open source software and package managers.
So, a hat-tip to him and all the other pioneers who helped make the world a better place.
In addition, the telecomms were generally not interested in the very early Internet (TCP/IP) because they couldn't figure out how to do per-packet metering, and they assumed that was necessary.
All 3 examples show that trying to do fine-grained metering, in ways that cause tremendous overhead, often don't work. It is sometimes better to make something so that it is "too cheap to meter".
superdistribution was superinteresting... but i felt the same as well when reading it... it could only work if everyone agreed at the same time to use the same protocols... and of course legislation... but it was definitely a grand vision and would have been interesting to see the effect on culture and creativity if it had actually panned out
Yupp! I made a little toy project for the EVM over a year ago with this exact concept, never really did anything with it sadly, life seems to find ways to get busy. Due to the nature of needing to send 'gas' to make function calls, it was a natural fit to add a call to send a small portion of the value to an address before returning the computations result.
I really loved the idea of being able to create libraries of code that could just be called for a small fee or copied for free if one didn't have the funds. I hope this idea continues to catch on, it seemed to me to be a perfect incentive fit for the open source world.
> He worked hard to enable software reuse. No one was interested in his idea of trying to monitor component use during runtime to pay developers.
This is a nice idea although I never thought it could've worked; it seems like it took forever for people to stop trying though. The app-and-library organization of software is more natural than document-and-component organization because of Conway's law, which is surprisingly hard to escape.
"No one was interested in his idea of trying to monitor component use during runtime to pay developers."
The way to make people pay for software components is not to ask them for money at runtime, but to do so much much earlier in the development cycle: at design time.
In the instances that I have seen this business model work, the components are usually bought as part of a collection [1]—think source-available components similar to the model made famous by Apache Commons (Commons Codec, Commons Util, Commons Lang etc). The Apache Commons OSS project emerged on June 20, 2007 [0] as a way of standardizing the need for reusable Java components and libraries, slowly killing the market of paid components.
Or, components are bought as part of an ongoing subscription to a large catalog containing thousands of components [1][2]—think of it as a company-wide Safari Books subscription but for software components.
As part of the business model, component designers and developers were paid royalties in additional to the one-time monetary payment for developing each component, with the top 25 royalty earners collectively making as much $458,792.31 over a multi-year period [3].
He worked hard to enable software reuse. No one was interested in his idea of trying to monitor component use during runtime to pay developers. That was an unworkable approach, and I told him that then. But the general world of making it easy to reuse components is a reality today, via open source software and package managers.
So, a hat-tip to him and all the other pioneers who helped make the world a better place.