Slashdot Mirror
Is Open Source Recession Proof?
DaMan writes "ZDNet asks Is open source recession proof?
'So, how might a recession affect open source software? Well, first off, I think that any business model that relies on volunteers could certainly see interest decline if times get tough. There are a lot of businesses that rely on people working for them for free because they get a pay check somewhere else, and I think that a recession would make people question working without getting any dollars in return.'"
Do they think OSS has a problem with recessions? Quite the reverse.
I got nailed in the Bomb, like a lot of us. Went through 4 companies in 3 years, and only one of them still existed after I left it (for another 3 whole months). Leaves you with nothing but crap on your resume; can't even prove the companies existed, more less get a reference.
I got left with skills that no one wanted, and no money to buy professional tools to start my own business. So I turned to Open Source. I'd hardly used it to that point; hadn't had any real need. But the ability to churn out products using nothing but freely available tools put money in my pocket, let me undercut my competition, and basically saw me through a rough patch. I've never been as active in OSS development as I was in those days...It wasn't because I had so much free time, it was because I needed that stuff, and if it didn't exist, I damn well had to create it!
So they think OSS is something that comes out of people being well off? All of us volunteer because we're all so bored, and have so much money and free time that we just sit around coding things? Are they nuts? Did Linus start programming Linux because he was bored with working with all the fancy Unix code people were throwing at him? No! He started it because he couldn't afford the expensive stuff, so he damn well made his own. Did anyone pay him to do it? No! Did he end up making money off it none-the-less? Yes!
Far from being bad for OSS, recessions are GOOD for OSS. You lose your job, and freelance while looking for another one...What are you going to use? Companies have a need, and no budget to fill it with commercial software...What are they going to use? Sure, if you specialize in zillion dollar OSS deployments, you've got problems (problem #1: You're mythical), but the true strength of OSS isn't in giant deployments, but in filling in the gaps...When the gaps get bigger, there we are.
If you've got a track record of doing more with less, recessions are always a good time for you.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Oh, it has to be at least 80 or 90!
WTF are you talking about?!?
Open source kept trucking through the tech bubble's collapse in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I'd say it's impossible for there not to be an impact, but I don't think it's going to be that huge.
Let's also remember here that this recession, if it is indeed one, seems largely contained to the United States. There's a whole big world out there, and for companies that have become major sellers of support and services around open source like IBM, there are other places to go.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Oh, it has to be at least 80 or 90!
WTF are you talking about?!?
GNU was started in 1984. RMS had been working in a OSS like envirorment (MIT AI lab) since 1971. They got their ideas from somewhere. So yeah its a stretch but the grandparent is right.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
In the US, working on a project for an employer constitutes a "work-for-hire" under the terms of the Copyright Act, specifically 17 USC 201(b). The employer owns the rights in these cases, not the coders. You'd have to have negotiated a specific contract with the employer in advance granting you copyright, which I doubt rarely happens in practice.
If it never got licensed to anyone, how could that work?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think the words "put a license on it" deserves extreme scrutiny. What does that really mean? Are we just talking about some text that is at the top of top of some source code files on an inhouse project, or are we talking about a license that was actually offered to someone outside, or what?
What I do see is intent and that probably counts for something, if it gets to court. But aside from the intent, did it happen? Proprietary vendors often show intent to license things under a EULA, but often the user never transacts with directly with them, so it's hard to show that an agreement was reached. Likewise, with an free licence, if the company never actually transacted with someone and gave them the code, then it's going to be hard to show that the license was even offered.
This could get tricky.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It's unclear.
Very likely, your employer would try to stop you on the grounds that they, not you, own the copyright to the source code. However, this is deeply ambiguous. If they wrote the code from scratch then obviously they own the copyright and can stop you. If they are instead modifying and extending a pre-existing code base, they will probably claim to own it anyway, but one could argue that constitutes a "derivative work" under (U.S.) copyright law and therefore is not copyrightable. The operative copyright would be that of the pre-existing code base; held by, for example, the Free Software Foundation. Sorting out who owns the copyright would require a team of lawyers, many billable hours, and perhaps a Federal judge.
To take work you'd done at the office and distribute it yourself would very likely infringe some copyright; either your former employer's, or the original developer's. The original developer might feel your modification are a boon to the community and should be shared far and wide; your employer may feel differently. It would take a jury to sort the matter out.
In a nutshell: if your employer is unhappy about you taking the code, they can ruin your life whether they have a valid claim to the code or not. The cost to defend against their suit would, in all probability, be ruinous.
Incidentally: I Am Not a Lawyer. And if I were, I would be scared to death of someone trying to construe this post as legal advice.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Correction. In the American speaking world, everyone may well say Resume. But in the English speaking world (ie England), we say CV.