Re: Just one thought...
% but the 'tipping' kind of payment seems
> more lasting:
I could see this lasting only as long as developers do this work out of the kindness of their hearts. I have happy users, but they don't pay the bills.
> creators, etc. Moving from a model where
> information gains value by spreading to
> one where it loses it just seems like a
> bad bargain...
I'm not sure I understand the perception that this model loses it's value? We should not confuse value of notariety and value of sale. Linux is nearly worthless as a sale value, but is very valuable in it's popularity. A good ransom project would steadily increase in popularity and decrease in sale value as the developer gets closer to being fully compensated for their work.
Re: Ransom == Bounty
I agree that this may be a tender point for the ransom model, however I think the real question about sequential ransoms is how much would the user be willing to pay to get the next version. There are a great number of factors here though, the amount of the ransom, the range of the version ie: ransom may be for the entire 2.x branch or 2.1-2.5. If we are 'leap-frogging' the ransom versions. Also the ransom should be considered paying for work done. If someone else can/will do it for less than that's just capitolism at work.