For The Love Of Open Source

Jim Madison writes: "Is the open source movement about the joy of hacking? The latest edition of FirstMonday has an interesting academic study that says "No!", it is only natural in our traditional political economy that software be developed with public funding in the safety of academia when the markets are immature. Have moved into a post-scarcity gift culture or is the report correct that open source uses and needs the subsidy of public investment to grow within traditional industrial capitalism?"

Comments

Because it turns me on

[WildBeast]

I only do it because it turns me on. The way those letters roll on the monitor while I'm typing, so sensual :) And how about that Shell? Simply gorgeous.

$0.02 from an academic

[s20451]

I agree that academia tends to support open source software, which has several reasons, in my experience. Firstly, academics are accustomed to peer review, and are comfortable with the notion that inspection by an independent expert tends to improve research. Secondly, academics' livelihoods depends directly on the scientific and not the commercial significance of their work. Most academics have an awareness that their salary is paid for by the generosity of government and industry, who (usually) don't expect anything specific in return; this leads to a desire to give something tangible back (such as the software that results from a research project). Finally, it is usually true that the software produced by academics is not important in itself; instead, it is the idea behind the software that academics want to promulgate; releasing the source code is the quickest way to spreading this idea.

Personally, I release my simulation software in the hope that another researcher continuing my work won't have to waste six months writing his/her own software from scratch.

Oh, for God's sake

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Free software is no more "communism" than, say, commercial software (by which I mean the Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, etc. business model) is "fascism," or the academic (e.g. BSD) model is "theocracy." Using terms which invoke the suffering and death of millions of people to argue about software isn't just absurd; it insults the memory of those who suffered and died under the real thing. People who call Linux "commie software" ought to try living in Cuba or the PRC for a while to learn what real communism is like.

My own views on your points

[Anonymous Coward]

I also write open source software, software I give away for the heck of it.

"1. I don't want to support it. Let people find usefulness in it. Let them contribute as well. But I don't want to spend 80 percent of my waking hours solving naive questions. "

I do support my software, in the sense that every week, one or two people have a comment or have noticed something that needs tweaking. I try to fix things, because I take pride in my work and I welcome the chance to have strangers test my programs for free.

"2. I don't want the risk that comes with marketing software for money. I don't want to risk my livelihood by starting a business to support my software, either. Really marketing something takes 3-5 good years of your life to do it right, and it involves risk. "

I've seen people try to sell their software, and it seems to me that it's a hellish experience. I don't want to experience their hell, even if it would buy me a fancy car (which I don't want anyway, since I'm not a superficial person). Anyway, the marketing channels are mostly closed, or they require huge sums of money to enter. Not worth it.

"3. Yes, I like to help people and I benefit from what they contribute. I'm not anal about having to have GNU software only, but I do support what they do. I feel like I am giving back to the common pool when I develop open source apps. "

I see this as a part of the social contract. If I saw a person getting mugged, I would feel compelled to help them. By the same token, when I see a consumer getting ripped off my Microsoft or any other nasty company, I feel compelled to help provide an alternative.

"4. I am not a competitive person. In fact, I absolutely dislike it. I prefer to develop a useful app to the best of my abilities. ..."

I don't fear competition, it's a fact of life. I certainly don't see competition as a cure-all, as economic liberals do. Just look at the mess with cell phones in the US. That's competition for you. I am simply competing with schlock software that comes out of corporations, to the extent that I bother to notice the "competition".

"Disclaimer: I am not socialist. I love free and open economies. IMHO, competitive business economies are the best thing we've come up with yet. They keep people honest."

Apparently you haven't been to America :) There's nothing honest about capitalism here. They bribe politicians, destroy small companies, propagandize until the public doesn't know anything about anything. I oppose capitalism gladly. I consider it a point of pride, just as I take pride in opposing the lowly thugs who mug people in dark alleys.

DazMe

Re:My own views on your points

[conan_albrecht]

[orig author reply]

>>>"Apparently you haven't been to America :) There's nothing honest about capitalism here. They bribe politicians, destroy small companies, propagandize until the public doesn't know anything about anything. I oppose capitalism gladly. I consider it a point of pride, just as I take pride in opposing the lowly thugs who mug people in dark alleys."

Yes, I agree with you here. FYI, I grew up and live in the USA. I'm as American as anyone else. However, my point is that capitalism is the best thing yet. I know it has *serious* drawbacks. But I take it any day over communism, pure socialism, or anything else history has to show us. I hope for the day when scarce resources are a thing of the past and we no longer need capitalism to keep people and companies in check.

I realize that many companies are totally unethical (I dislike MS vehemently), but at least our system keeps them in check to some level. Capitalism makes for a great life because it caters to people's greed. On the whole, people want to work and innovate because they want $. Capitalism works because it accepts this fact at our society's current stage of development. Most other systems that have been tried give people too much ethical credit.

Re:My own views on your points

[Drone-X]

I'm a bit sceptical about this. One of my roommates (damn that word is strange, how about dorm mate?) comes from a former African communist country (or socialist as he and Marckx would call it) and speaks about that in a very positive way. I've also read nice things about the quality of work done in communist countries, which is something I also see in free software vs. commercial software.

In the end I think it's not possible to draw conclusions about the communist system because it hasn't been tried long enough and because of lack of support of capitalist countries (not that you could espect anything else). You can't instate communism/socialism in a poor country and espect to have all problems resolved in half a century if there's no help from the outside to bootstrap their society into first world 20/21st century wealth.

That's not to say there haven't been successes with planned economies but I'd espect an immediate result of instating equality in a poor country (with very rich and very poor people) to be that the average wealth drops phenominally. A possitive result would be that there should be no more hunger and everyone can get a decent education. Over time quality education and adaptation by the previous rich (as far as they don't flee elsewhere) should get society further in the long run... ignoring for a moment that communism does have a ruling class which tends to get corrupt but true socialism should solve that.

However, my point is that capitalism is the best thing yet. I know it has *serious* drawbacks. But I take it any day over communism, pure socialism, or anything else history has to show us. I hope for the day when scarce resources are a thing of the past and we no longer need capitalism to keep people and companies in check.

I don't think scare resources are a problem. After all the very rich have the money to claim these resources for themselves yet they don't do that, and I do not believe that's because of "with power/money comes responsibility" as capitalists like to say.

I realize that many companies are totally unethical (I dislike MS vehemently), but at least our system keeps them in check to some level. Capitalism makes for a great life because it caters to people's greed. On the whole, people want to work and innovate because they want $.

I'm not sure I understand how capitalism keeps people in check? Isn't this the job of governments?

Or if you mean that capitalism works because it gives an intensity for people to work, to that I'd reply that it gives this intensity only to the worker class, the majority of the rich also tend to work while they don't need the money (which from your point of view is especially strange for children of the rich).

BTW, by your logic you could also say slavery works because it gives an intensity for people to work, and this would be true if it weren't that in slavery people work because of fear for punnishment as in capitalism people work because of fear for poverty - why can't they do work for enjoyment as the rich do?

Capitalism works because it accepts this fact at our society's current stage of development. Most other systems that have been tried give people too much ethical credit

I also don't think socialism gives people to much ethical credit. I've heard many of the working (older) adults around me say that they'd feel useless if they didn't work and I've heard the same people claim that they'd keep on working if they won the lotery - at a slower pace alas but that could compensate nicely with those unemployed that want to work.

Further I'd like to remark that capitalism does in fact not work - it's a broken system for the vast majority of people on this planet because it relies too much on exploitation and unemployment (because you want people to be scared of getting fired).

I'm looking forward to hear some insight from you. Oh yeah, try the link that my sig is, it complements this post :).

Laziness

[zutroy]

I release software open source because of laziness and fear of angry mob reprisal. It's time-consuming to try to get software published, and if I tried to release the software as shareware, I'd have to publish my address, or get a PO Box.

The ego boost you get from people telling you how much they like your software ain't bad either.

open source _is_ capitalism

[vscjoe]

Sustainable open-source development is driven by simple, hard-nosed economic considerations and cost-benefit considerations. Given that almost all the costs in commercial software development are due to marketing, distribution, and testing, rather than development, it shouldn't be hard even for an ecnonomist to figure out why it makes economic sense for people to develop, and support the development of, open source software.

Commercial software companies are an inefficient means to avoid the tragedy of the commons for a good that otherwise costs essentially nothing for the public to enjoy. But with software, as opposed to many other goods, it turns out that development costs are so low that the benefit you derive from non-programming users, who still contribute bug reports and suggestions for enhancements out of self-interest, usually more than makes up for the development costs. And open source software as a marketing tool, as a tool to establish standards, and for establishing reputations is also very valuable.

Software is post-scarcity; PROGRAMMERS are not

[Chip Salzenberg]

There is heavy competition for programmers among open source projects. But the product of the work has zero incremental cost of distribution.

Therefore, users are free but programmers must be lured and kept. Without users a project can continue -- for a while, at least, or if the goals of the programmers don't require users -- but without programmers, the project will die.

Many people make the mistake of assuming that if the software is free for users then everything about it is free. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Wishful thinking/writing

[3seas]

Considering the title of the paper: The Fading Altruism of Open Source Development

I think it's safe to say that this is just another of those anti-oss works designed to discourage OSS.

But the thing is, OSS evolution has many variables that each contributor only needs enought to inspire them to do it. Which may be a very small number compaired to the list of reasons total.

But the fact of the matter is that OSS is a natural evolution in software development. And as such it will not be addhearent to the wishes, desires and attempts to control it by those who find it threatening. For if that could be done then MS would have been able to do something to indicate this to all those in opposition to OSS.

The natural place for OSS is that of establishing the common base of software development. For without such an OSS baseline the actual potential as to how far we can really take software would be a great deal less. The Baseline of OSS will advance and as such the proprietary industry will have to continue to move forward themselves. It's called competition in an industry where the proprietary holders thoiught they cornered the industry with control over it. Only people, developer, students, users can't be so easily cornered in mass. For you'd have to get them all in the same mass first.

It should not be supprising to see stuff like this article and there will be more, until the hard reality of nature is finally accepted by those who want to deny nature of humans to not be constrained by false limits.

Re:I would say just the opposite is true

[DerekLyons]

To understand open source, you half to understand that copyrights ard patents are not free market, but government monopolies that artificially manipulate the market.

No. Copyrights and patents were (originally) demanded by inventors, artists, and authors so that they might enjoy the fruit of their works free of pirates, and go on to produce more works. By the 17-1800's almost all goverments realized that protecting the people who produce their economic and intellectual gold was a Good Thing, this protection created jobs and engendered trade and economic prosperity.

The current OSS movement exists from that prosperity and the time available in modern society for people to work on OSS in their 'free' time, or to be 'paid' to create it using other peoples money for which they are not expected to produce actual product.

In order to get arround the damage this causes, an established and well founded University system is required to get information and knowledge out into the open.

No. Universities were created to, and function best, when they train the minds of the younger generation and pass on the learning of the older generations in an organized fashion. They were originally created to share existing knowledge, 'publish or perish', the creation of knowledge is a rather recent development historically speaking. The effect has been to warp education and to transform schools into economic entities.

Now the GPL and internet are changing this and making it so that people can actually learn, share, and apply knowledge in the free market way it was always intended to be.

A simple minded restatement of the Hacker Ethos, which was created by students searching for a justification for stealing other peoples work. There is nothing inherent in information that causes it to 'want' to be free.