That's factually incorrect. Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features. Mastodon was released in 2016 and has more than 26k GitHub stars, so is quite clearly way beyond being a prototype.
Yeah and that's insulting. As if they had already been compensated for what features came before.
Why make the funding conditional on new features? When someone has already put in so much unpaid labor. Reward the already-contributed labor!
It’s an innovation fund, not a ‘give away free money to those who deserve it’ fund.
Their aim is to be to use the funding to improve or introduce new software that contributes to the public good, so paying developers for stuff that they already developed doesn’t make direct sense considering their stated goal.
The way they are allocating funding has the added benefit that they can track the impact of the fund, which will help them secure the funding for the whole fund in the long term (I.e. they can list exactly what impact they have made on projects rather than just vaguely state that they have had an impact on some projects by donating to them).
> It’s an [x] fund, not a [y] fund
Yes, that's exactly the problem I objected to -- not something I need to be told.
> Their aim is
Their aim is wrong. It would be much better to pay the back wages than pretend it's jubilee just so they can impose strings.
But I guess it's hard to resist, when you have the money, to exercise the power.
> they can track the impact of the fund
This is the only actual point you made, and it's weak. Who cares? They can't objectively judge the social impact of the software regardless, they can only judge whether the technical goals were accomplished. Useless either way when they're choosing to fund the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Well why don't they just give the money to water infrastructure in Africa then? Surely that's a more worthy aim if we get to decide what their aim should be for them? Or their aim could be to help teach coding to the young, that's just as valid.
Their aim is to develop new tech, thus asking people to pitch what they would develop if given funding seems like a sensible approach.
This is also funded by money the German Government has allocated for R&D, so it has also been budgeted for 'new tech' rather than just rewarding historical contributors through donations. If the prototype foundation aimed to reward historical contributions, their current funding likely wouldn't exist, and if they don't show how they contribute towards R&D then the funding won't exist in the future.
Besides, Why is their aim wrong? Should there be no funding for people who want to create new public interest tech?