Slashdot Mirror
The Open Code Market
The Open Code Market
The peer reviewed magazine FirstMonday has published one paper I wrote on the business possibilities of Open Source titled "The Open Code Market".
In short, The Open Code Market aims to become a Free Market for software, as well as a market for Free Software. The OCM introduces into the Free/Open Source movement an economic incentive, to help align the priorities of Free/Open Source developers with those of the end users.
Between the final draft and publication, I received many valuable comments on the idea. I am very grateful to all those who dedicated some of their valuable time to read the paper and make insightful comments.
Some of those comments led me to an earlier similar effort by Brian Behlendorf named SourceXchange (originally at www.sourcexchange.com). After contacting Brian, his comments were probably the most valuable, since he had gone through the the actual proces of running a project similar to what I am proposing.
His main line was that:
a) while the market made profits, it did not reach the levels of profitability that were expected in the middle of the dot.com boom, and investors looked for other (more lucrative) endevours
b) That the dot.com boom also addedd costs (high salaries, etc) to his attempt and
c) that it is difficult to commoditise software creation due to the uncertainties over time / effort required to write the software, and the difficulty of the role of "project manager".
My line on all this is that
- The project may be easier to develop now as expectations for profits (and costs) have decreased, and that sourcing on low-cost countries (i.e. India, Vietnam, etc.) would reduce costs significantly.
- I also expect that the market will take off only as Free Software/Open Source (Linux in particular) moves to the mass market of the desktop, thus generating the necessary economies of scale, visibility and consumer-mass. In my idea, the target end-users of the market are not IT companies, but mainly individuals with no IT knowled (nor desire to acquire it) and Small and Medium Enterprises with small or no IT departments.
"
I think I see a new class split. The do-it-yourselfers that appreciate the quality and flexibility of open source vs. the people who just want a working computer without configuration woes. Guess which one will spawn the new millionairs and monarchs?
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
try explaining the good side of open-source programs to people who have never written a program in their life... you'll see what I mean...
I can't see much revenue comming from ordinary computer users who would see this as a 'hacker's' network or something. where they should direct themselves is towards the programming communities and (mostly) businesses...
The obvious answer is of course that the code can be seen and updated by the OSS community but IMHO most don't see the value in that and would rather stick with their own development team to do their work for them (think the Microsoft argument of having someone to fire).
My guess would be that it's effectively the same for them (since they could commission patches much the same as they could pay their programmers to update software) but again, management probably doesn't like it that they have to pay someone out of house to do it.
It's about time that someone created a method such as this to make the creation of open source code generate some funds for the programmer. If companies can see that keeping these programs open can be beneficial not only to them in the support of the OSS community but the the industry as a whole then I think everyone should be benefitted by something like this.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Suppose right now today my company wants a custom feature or a bug fixed in some OS software. We can pull out our checkbook and hire X to do Y for $Z. If it's OS work, that's just part of our contract. AFAIK, this happens already.
So what is the innovation here? To create a "market" that is basically a consulting company for OS work? Doesn't seem to be...after all, the article specifically says this is not limited to GPL (and that didn't seem to be followed up with "or other open-source license"). It says open code, but does that mean the results must be open or simply the basis must be open and the end results can only link to open libraries if they are closed?
Or is it to create a consulting company that uses contractors? I don't believe that's it either... contract consulting work is already routinely outsourced and sub-contracted.
Or is it to organize a commercial venture based on the work of OS? This might be the real heart of the issue. There is where I get mixed:
Surely funded development of OS software advances them, but this could turn sour quickly (think Red Hat!). Now, with varied customers with individual requests I'd like to think that the market could not take on a direction with its own agenda, but I would like to hear some arguments for and against this. The model indicates this is for-profit. Thus, requests from the highest bidders would probably get preference. Supppose MS throws a few billion at time-consuming features that add little value to the product. Why wouldn't this market eat that up? But think about the cost of this. While developers add features such as scrollbars changing color through a gradient to indicate how far down you've scrolled, they are not working on fundamental issues that need to be addressed before they blow up in our faces. Suppose SCO hires a company to request a feature which would infringe on SCO's IP such that there is a genuine IP infringement that they don't appear to have set up directly.
I, for one, would rather have talented developers working on things like IPv6 implementation, that commercial investors probably won't want to fund, or at least wouldn't be able to compete with people who use the market as a tool against OS.
I think any time something this scale is set up, it should be very carefully critiqued. Unfortunately, there's nothing stopping anyone from doing it if it turns out to be a set-up for OS disasters.
The only thing more dangerous than a file named -rf is renaming it -rf\ /
Err, hello? RH desktop...dead. SUSE...wounded by Novell. SCO is bleeding any OSS-involved company with litigation. Who's going to take linux to the desktop or "mass market" as suggested here?
I'm not saying this guy is wrong, but the OSS world has got some damage control to do. I'm confident it will pull through (my paycheck depends on it) but I would rethink using this as a justification for this project's market readiness.
You never saw a fish on the wall with its mouth shut.
I would hope that OCM would be better than "try before you buy." I have reached a stage in life where I want products that do what I want them to do. I don't care to spend time trying software in a production environment because I find that so much of it is a waste of time.
OCM would seem to support the commissioning of software projects or modifications. Thus I could go the Market, submit a request (e.g., "I want a real-time transparent version of CVS") and various groups might make counter-offers of price and functionality. A bit of public interchange would would lead to a mutually agreeable specification and price. In some cases, the software provided might be off-the-shelf and in other cases it might be written from scratch.
As a venue for the commissioning and creation of software, I see OCM providing a valuable venue for both software creators and software consumers. Software consumers could aggregate to share the costs of new or modified software or form a mutual-support community around a given piece of software.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Of the several problems F/OSS faces today, one is the fact that it is free. Not as in freedom, but as in free beer. Both private users and business are at a loss when it is explained that there are thousands of people developing Free Software, for free. The immediate reaction is of disbelief, followed by the assumption that the software must be of low quality...consumers and businesses work for money, and they mistrust people who do not.
Except the software is increasingly being used, and recognized as high quality. I just don't see the problem here. If there were not, in fact, thousands of people willing to develop good software for free, then we would have a problem. If the software were, in fact, lower quality because it's free, we would have a problem. Inaccurate perceptions and cultural mismatches are not a problem. They are correcting themselves quickly enough.
In fact, this all sounds like a leftover argument from 1996...these days, the argument is commercial vendors screaming that free software is ruining their business model.
Market failure can also occur when people who have not paid cannot be prevented from consuming the good, a condition called nonexcludability. Public goods by definition exhibit both jointness of consumption and nonexcludability.
Ergo, it may be a resource, but it can't be called a market.
I believe that a project like this misses the point. As I see it, most Open Source developers do not write code because they want to Make The World A Better Place. Their motivation is not the satisfaction of users.
Programmers write code because that's what they love to do. This is why there are dozens of editors, mailers, etc, rather than a single well-maintained application of each type. A coder says to himself "I feel like writing yet another mp3 ripper GUI". He proceeds to do so despite the fact that numerous examples already exist because his motivation is his own pleasure, rather than a desire to fill some gap.
Trying create a carrot to dangle in front of these people is pointless. They don't want your carrot. They want to write the code that they want to write.
+1 Perceptive
The communities are not separated. The high level of communication between developer, tester, and user is the greatest strength of OpenSource software. They are sometimes the same person! By introducing a "clearing house" you are adding a middleman and thereby reducing efficiency.
+1 Perceptive
This is a difficult problem. Really difficult - and essentially unsolved by traditional development models. OpenSource itself is a solution to this problem. Code reviews, while one of the most useful tools for preventing these problems, are also one of the most labor-intensive (read "expensive").
This might come off as a trol, so I will post anonymously... For a long time I have the feeling that all of us, developers/coders, are lemmings. To those who does not know, a lemming is a little mole-like creature that once in a while commits a mass cuicide. Why don't we see any other professional worker , let it be a builder, a doctor, a writer or whats not give his work for free ? Why is that only coders are being asked to code and let their creations go ? for free ?! We are commiting mass cuicide. True, lots of people enjoy linux (as I am) and contribute to it (as I am) - but this does not mean we need to lower the salary standard in our profession to *zero*. The open source advocates will say its about the "service" but hey - if you didn't realized it so far - there is no "service" to give - the end users are asking (natuarally) for everything to be simpler, more user friendly, with help screens and such and we give it to them (see "kmyfirewall" as a great example on how to make the cryptic iptables into human enjoyable expirience for the whole family), the outcome will be that no one will need coders for anything else other than creating programs, friendly programs, for free. So? don't you think there is some truth here? (I know this looks like a trol, but it REALLY not)
However, I have to wonder...what will existing maintainers of a given project do when a company pays someone else to add a feature to their application? I suppose it would depend on the maintainer, but would there be a definate trend?
... The original developer will lose control of the future direction of their creation. Not that this can't happen now, it just doesn't that often. But this new fiscal dynamic could changes things. And since it is open source there is nothing you can do to stop it either.
Bingo, and that is the flaw. There is no way you can compete on cost with developers in Russia, India, China,
This Free Market/Software Exchange idea is basically a global version of a eBay that streamlines the off shoring of software development. My feelings are mixed. Is this really a good thing?