Slashdot Mirror
Do Companies Take Software, And Not Give?
SirDaShadow writes "The Inquirer has an excellent article that describes how companies take from the Open Source Community and how few are giving back. At the end of the article, it says it might be tax deductible. This made me think...wouldn't it be great for the OS community if we could provide a law to facilitate tax cuts to companies who give to OS, or at least make it mandatory to for-profit organizations to give a certain minimum amount and take it out of their taxes?" This piece ignores the obvious and large contributions that some companies have made in money, programmer time, code release and even just lending their name and credibility to projects like KDE and GNOME, but it does have some truth -- see for instance the Busybox Hall of Shame.
wouldn't it be great for the OS community if we could provide a law to facilitate tax cuts to companies who give to OS
Absolutely not. As soon as you get government involved, OS becomes political, and influenced by political forces. This is the last thing we want.
Corporations want to take before they give. That's the sad truth. If there's no extra profit in it for them, they're less likely to do it.
Articles like this one are going to have to be published in places like the Wall Street Journal or other papers that corporate paperpushers look at. Then perhaps they'll catch on. Hopefully.
Good karma is sometimes worth a lot more than immediate profit -- if a company pitches in to help, and gets their name in the changelog or thankyou files, who knows? They might get a few customers that way.
i am a soviet space shuttle
I find this article somewhat naive. It's certainly true that there are lot of companies abusing GPL and OSS for commercial purposes some of them probably modify code and never release their changes.
;-)
The article also suggest that instead of spending, and I quote
"If you replaced 10 $30,000 Nokia firewall with a free NetBSD implementation, but it lacks the ability to report to your management software, why not do something about it?"
This is not as easy as it sounds. Nokia probably payed through the nose to get the specs for that management software or signed more NDAs and deals that your company has seen in its lifetime. It's not always an option to do stuff yourself. Further most phb's will automagically raise the (valid) point, who to blame when the shit hits the fan. When something goes haywire and you payed some college kid $500, you can't call him in the middle of his exams and expect him to fix it. You can ask him, but he/she is certainly not obliged to fix it.
If you go with Nokia, you can give their tollfree hotline a call and tell them your problem and the chances are that the hotfix/patch is already available.
Things aren't so black/white as the article wants it to be, IMHO it's a pretty shitty article and doesn't really add anything to the scene apart from entropy. The busybox-link however, was interesting
If you're a socialist nit wit and believe that the government owns the money even after you earned it.
They don't tax you on it. That's all. God forbid the government not get a cut of *all* of the action, because, well, they were THERE, and there are paper pushers to pay, and bombs to build, and welfare recipients who NEED another bag of Cheesy Poofs for the afternoon's great lineup of TV.
You have effectively donated EVERY penny to the charity, the government just decided not to penalize you for that portion of your income. It wasn't the government's money to begin with, and fortunately, it isn't now. And please, get drunk next election day and forget to go to the polls, the world will be a better place.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Fighting the War on the War on Drugs.
http://smokedot.org/
give it time, people learn to contribute more.
if anything lets not bring taxes into this.
Obviously, a sufficient fraction of those companies are "giving back" for there to exist a lively and productive open source community. And even "mere users" are useful for open source projects: they make feature requests and report bugs.
Of course if the source was to be ever revealed, that is some serious risk, but if the company plans to keep it always secret - why not?
Because GPL violations are not too hard to detect even without source code. And even if they were hard to detect, any company that does this would be at serious risk from a disgruntled employee. What better way to get back at your company than to get them in trouble for massive copyright violations of open source projects? Not only will their products be in jeopardy, they'll also be widely hated.
And how many slashdotters who are NOT programmers have downloaded and used free software and never gave the authors any money for it? Isn't buying a Linux distro a way of giving back to the community if you're not a programmer.
Typical Open Source hypocrisy: Programmers that whine about paying for programs and demanding that it has to "Be Free as in Freedom" and then get pissed off because someone takes you up on that. Don't want someone to rip-off your work? Don't make it Free.
The price of "freedom in programming" is the freeloader.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
The whole point of free software is freedom, the minute you begin adding forceful restrictions is the point it is not longer free software, like the internet freedom comes at a cost.
If the cost if people dont need to give anything back then so be it. But if you start adding a requirement to give something back you will end up with shoddy code, less chance of anyone bothering to use it at the enterprise level and probably increase the TCO quite a bit.
If you start adding more resrictions like this to free software you begin walking down the EULA road that the GPL and its siblings are supposed to be the opposite of.
I read the article, and it's one of those rare times that there's nothing much in it that isn't contained in the Slashdot summary. Anyway, isn't it totally to be expected that most companies would take everything they can get from open source, and not give anything back in terms of time or money?
But so what? What Linux needs more than anything else is to capture more than 20% of the desktop market. Once there's a foothold of that magnitude, we'll start seeing practically everything, from Doom III to Quickbooks, released in Linux.
So, as for those companies who aren't "giving back," -- I say, that merely by virtue of adding to the pool of Linux users, they are giving the open source movement exactly what it needs most.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
I wanted to respond to this when I saw it on the inquirer.
Quite simply, the corporation adopts an open source project. A bunch of their employees use it. THEY know whether or not THEY like it, not the company.
How many individuals help out an open source project after the start using it from their business? That's what's important.
At least some fraction of the pay these programmers earn at those companies should be counted when figuring the corporate effect on open source.
Open source feeds the non-contributing companies, but those non-contributing companies enable more people to work as programmers, increasing the pool of people who are able to work on open source as individuals.
good point. That is the idea of free software. We talk about wanting to see linux on the desktop and more end-user penetration but what can/should we expect in return. These companies (from the article) that integrate open-source software rarely have development staff and usually have very low skilled administrative staff. At best they could submit bug reports and do testing but I think that is even a bit much to expect.
.. uhh karma event ;-)
Admittedly, everyone in the community has different motivations, but one principle of open source is that it is given away freely without expectation of compensation. Some may say that it is actually with the expectation of benefiting from others' work but that cant be viewed as a transactional event. More like a
No disrespect meant to Erik, but I took a look around the hall of shame and it's not really as shocking as it first appears. Buffalo's wireless router has a statement at the bottom of the Linked page stating they comply with the GPL and source code is available. The PDF link appears to be an exact copy of the GPL, in PDF format, for some reason.
This leaves three products (counting the bottom three DVD players as one naughty entity) which appear to be breaking the GPL and are doing nothing about it. Considering Erik's 'Products' page, we're doing alright. It would seem that the other companies aren't really kicking up a fuss over having to have the source code available, maybe they just didn't read the GPL when they first used the code?
From the viewpoint of the code actually being used, I think this is a good thing. It represents a shift towards OS. A previous poster said that if even a small percentage give something back, we're doing pretty well. How many closed-source companies can claim to have had constructive feedback on their products that OS has the potential to enjoy?
Perhaps if we are receptive to this use of OS code, we will reap the rewards later when companies realise what a good deal they're getting? Patience is a virtue?
Bruce
Many companies lack the skills to maintain code--they simply don't have developers (or at least not the right sort of developer). To meaningfully contribute monetarily would erode at the cost savings. If the company is public, there may even be further complications.
If you create a model where software is available with no license fee, then you need to accept that is the rules you play by. Certainly you can go after the company if the start to make money off extensions to the software (i.e. violate the license), but, as someone noted earlier, you can't put a sign that says "free food," and complain that someone didn't chip in.
drivers for ports that no longer exist. Do you really need punchcard access?
//gs looked like. But maybe someone will care in 200 years. Who knows?
Someday, concievably, historians might.
OK, so maybe having a bunch of "useless" or obsolete software dumped into the quasi-public-domain isn't of much public good. But I still would think it is better than having all of that software simply lost to time forever.
We are going to have a relatively massive memory hole in the future's conception of what programming at the professional level at this time was like caused by the fact that all of the source code of the software we use today is going to be simply lost, since no one has copies except for the companies that made them, and those companies more than likely are not going to bother maintaining or keeping track of that code. No one today cares what the source code for Clarisworks versions 1 through 3 for the Apple
And then there's all those little "what if"s. For example, what if there's some huge quantity of deteriorating tapes somewhere containing some information important to someone, and it is determined these things need to be moved off and onto less fragile media, but the tape drives that read them can only be used from old, scarce and broken PDP-11s because they are the only platform for which drivers exist? In that light, device drivers for a dead platform don't sound so useless after all.
Things of that nature. Really, who can say what code that someone someday cold consider "useful"? I say, the more code preserved by the GPL in our cultural memory, the better.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Government is already deeply involved and the decisions you make are already political. This cannot be escaped. Government is what set up and controls copyright and patent regimes, the laws under which computer software are chiefly distributed, copied, and modified.
Government and big businesses are colluding to expand these regimes to include more behavior, making it impossible to do ordinary things without involving at least one of these regimes.
Your post speaks to a typical Slashdot mindset that precludes getting involved in government to affect a beneficial change for citizens. Your post is hardly insightful.
Digital Citizen
First of all, they're giving the OSS community their support by using the code. Not much, but knowing that makes a difference.
Then, they're giving employment to the geeks that roll out the code. I've built a successful career... well, a career anyway, out of being paid to run,use and tame free software, and I owe it not only to the free software I work with but to the people who chose to use the free sotware. My career, and the things my employers can do, would have been a lot more limited had they not had another option but the roadmap laid down for them by a well known developer of feature limited and proprietary software.
It's a commercial world out there chaps, let's not forget it. Every one of you who gets paid to do something based on free software has been given something by your employer that depends on that choice of theirs: your liveliehood. If you still feel that nothing's been given back then dont break the chain, give something back yourselves and write some free software of your own.
Oxford Dictionaries Online
I would hardly call that article excellent. Of course businesses do this. The Free Software movement identified a licensing mechanism that allows them to do this long before the Open Source movement existed. The Free Software movement even has a name for this mechanism in licenses--non-copyleft licensing. Businesses love this because it is essentially a donation to their organization. The Open Source movement doesn't distinguish between licenses that have this and licenses that don't because their message is chiefly aimed at businesses.
And it wouldn't be the Open Source movement if it didn't work this way. That movement doesn't say users should have software freedom, that movement throws out ensuring all computer users the freedoms to share and modify computer software in order to pitch a message of practical advantages (which aren't always true). The Open Source movement puts you in the position of pleading for improvements (as Charlie Demerjian's article does) instead of giving you the freedom to either do the work yourself, build a community of like-minded programmers you can rely on, or purchase support from a set of programmers bidding for your business.
Demerjian's article also doesn't demand software freedom, perhaps because the movement he aligns himself with doesn't want you to talk about such things. But he does ask for increased representation which still falls short of real support:
With so many people signing up to put on chains (and paying for the privilege), there's no incentive for any proprietor to do this (and as a result few do).
Both you and Demerjian (author of the Inquirer article) should read the FSF's essay on Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' which includes a great description of the practical weaknesses of the Open Source movement:
The Open Source movement eschews the one thing that would keep you from choosing non-free software--freedom. Without talking about software freedom, when so-called "Open Source" software fails you, you have no reason to reject a proprietary alternative.
Digital Citizen
The article talks about how nice it would be if companies offered to do additional programming on the OS software they use. This is nice, but is not required, assuming the software in question is GPL'ed. All that is required it that the licensee make an offer to provide source code if they distribute binaries outside their organization. If these companies are in compliance, there is no issue here and the article is just wishful thinking.
The Busybox Hall of Shame is a different animal altogether. These corporations are (supposedly/probably) not in compliance with the Busybox license. These are the *real* corporate bad guys, and the OS community should work to bring them into compliance, just like we did with Linksys et al.
Bottom line: if you want users of your software to do more than just make source code available, create a new license with contribution requirements. Its highly likely that such a license won't be truly open source and that no-one will want to use your software under such terms.
This isn't a problem, the freeloaders don't cost anyone anything when it comes to copying opensource software, infact they help it by broadening the base for potential services, applications and general viability. It's the contributors who make he product great. How many people have contributed to Linux, or do you just use it? Did you pay for it or get a free download.
The point is that copying software is almost free, there's no harm done when you take. It doesn't subtract from what is already created, sure contributing helps it get written, but merely using the software helps it grow in many ways and it's no skin of anyone's nose.
Tax deductible" effectively means that the government pays for it
I really wish people would get it out of their heads that the government pays for things Where does the government get the money? Who contributed, at gunpoint, the funds for the government to pay for things? Now, who pays for this???
thus endeth the sermon...
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Your post speaks to a typical Slashdot mindset that precludes getting involved in government to affect a beneficial change for citizens.
If that is the typical slashdot attitude, then good. The most beneficial thing that government can do for its citizens is to leave them alone to live their lives the way they want to as much as possible. This includes not forcing people to subsidize things through hidden taxes that have nothing to do with the business of government. Why the hell should we have have a tax subsidy for open source development? What possible reason does government have for this sort of action? If OS is good, it will survive in the open market. If not, well then it deserves to fail.
We have had endless attempts by government to influence economic decisions through the tax code - examples include programs like the subsidies for alternative energy, you name it. What has been the overall result of these programs? Constant meddling by bureaucrats and people pushing not-readt technologies.
The fact is (and I speak from long industrial experience) that private companies will pay zero attention to this - government is notoriously fickle when it comes to these programs - and the paperwork necessary to take advantage of them seldom pays for itself. This program will cost taxpayers far more than they get in return, it will inject government into an area it has no business in, and will inevitably distort the OS from a remarkably "free" completely international process into something that governments have a distorting influence on.
Oh wait, this is /.
All these posts along the lines of, "You released it free, now take your lumps!" are completely missing the point. (Well, at least of the article. The point of the timothy, who linked to the article, is another matter)
The point is, if a company uses free software, it should open its pocketbook instead of whining. Instead of going, "Waaa, it doesn't have feature X!" or "Waaa, there's a bug!" it should pay someone to fix the problem. It could pay someone in-house, in which case it should release the patches back to the community, or it can pay someone externally to do it.
One point that's often missed about releasing patches done in-house: the GPL doesn't require it for most backend software, but it's still a good plan for reasons other than being ethical and nice. If you release the patches, they can be integrated into the product as a whole, meaning you don't have to handle the expensive task of being their sole maintainer in the future.
It seems to me that the article is exactly right. Companies already do this to an extent by paying companies like Redhat for support, but if a piece of software is important to your business, it only makes sense to take a direct hand in its development. The whole mentality of purely being a consumer of whatever is offered from the development community is neither productive nor cost-effective. If something is important to you, make it happen. Don't just wait for other people to do it for you. That sort of thinking gives you situations like Microsoft, where someone might get around to helping you eventually, but oh man will your pocketbook be sorry.
As with politics, money talks. If you want the best software for your business, you should help fund the developers who can make it happen. Otherwise, since it's free software, you'll be able to use whatever the community thinks is important, but what you think is important may not be considered as relevant or get done as quickly (or at all).
There is one payback for OSS and AFAICT its the one that gave us Eclipse and some other nicies like a GPLd QT and stuff.
It's called bragging rights.
That's the prime reason for companies to invest into OSS.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Not all support needs to be financial or code.
I would argue that IBM, while it has contributed a great deal to the Linux kernel (RCU, JFS...) is currently making a much much greater contribution with its (admittedly in its own interest) staunch defense of the SCO suit, and it's countersuit claiming GPL violation (as well as patent infringement).
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
I would ask the same question of you--so what? We already have that thanks to emulation and there are plenty of other versions of Microsoft Windows where you can be catered to so long as you're willing to give up your freedom. What we need are Free Software programs to do these jobs, not more non-free software.
Perhaps that movement is satisified, but that movement is also very shortsighted in its mission to please businesses.
You certainly won't gain popularity over proprietors by giving them code under non-copyleft Free Software licenses or by choosing to run their proprietary alternative to a free program. Treating businesses like charities doesn't make you their friend, it sets you up to be taken advantage of. I'm reminded of the FSF's response to Microsoft when Microsoft's CEOs were on the lecture circuit calling the GNU General Public License a "cancer" and "unamerican":
Or why they ask you to give credit to the GNU operating system and not just the Linux kernal:
The chase for popularity is misguided and naive. I'm sure you have the best of intentions for GNU/Linux users, but you don't seem to understand that giving up freedom should not be done lightly. Sometimes giving up software freedom is acceptable, but most of the time it is not a good strategy. We are not well served with non-free programs to get jobs done.
Digital Citizen
I don't bite when people write me about my articles, that is why I put my e-mail on the top of every one :).
That said, if the people use it and love it, chances are that corporations are getting a benefit from it. I don't think the people contributing on their own time has the same power of contributing on corporate time.
The scenario I was imagining was that a company uses the software, and saves a ton of money doing so. An employee goes to his boss, and says 'Can I take friday afternoons to code a new feature and submit patches?'. In an ideal world, the boss would reply 'sure Bob, that would benefit us as well as the community, and it is a very good cost/benefit ratio' rather than the more common 'get bent, back to the mines'.
-Charlie
Or even mostly with modern projects and the BSD license. You see---
as long as the company is promoting, testing, or even just using the free software they are contributing by exposing others to it. Think of it as free marketing at the very least. If they can give bug reports, that is better. If they buy from a distributor such as Red Hat and rely on their support, they are helping Red Hat make bug reports, etc. That is all OK.
The whole point of free software is that it gives companies and individuals the freedom to contribute to what extent they decide is in their best interest! This can be anywhere from simply USING the software to contributing back code.
Why are people so hostile towards users? I just don't understand...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP