Slashdot Mirror
Is Open Source Software a Race To Zero?
gozunda writes "My company is an open source software vendor/developer. We maintain a popular open source project and keep ourselves afloat by producing commercial products derived from or extending the value of the core project. Over time we've seen our business model eroding as other open source projects produce free versions of the same extensions and utilities that are our bread and butter. Something that was worth $5K last year is suddenly worth $0 because the free version is just as good as the paid. This same cycle is obviously having an impact on pure-play commercial software vendors. Is open source ultimately a race to zero? In ten years will there be any cost associated with commodity (non-custom) software? If not, will there still be a 'software industry' as it exists today, or will software simply be a by-product of the operation of other industries? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? As a professional developer, do I need to fear this or feed it?"
Perhaps "Au contraire" or "On the contrary", if French is too hard.
The intent of the GPL -- which is, arguably, not "open source" software because it fails to meet the non-discrimination requirement of the "Open Source Definition" -- is, indeed, to cause a race to zero. Richard Stallman specifically said this when he authored the GPL: his goal in creating the license was to extinguish programmers' chances of making a living via what he called "proprietary" software. (The correct term is "commercial" software; the word "proprietary" actually has a different meaning.) He hoped that programmers -- not being businesspeople -- would be naive about the economics of software, and could be duped by rhetoric into dooming their own profession. They haven't completely doomed it, but they certainly have done great damage to it. Fortunately, they are beginning to realize the ruse that has been perpetrated upon them. The GPL and other viral, confiscatory licenses do their damage because they discriminate against programmers (the reason why they do not conform to the Open Source Definition). Anyone else can use the software as he or she sees fit without giving anything up, except for programmers -- who must give up the right to their incremental improvements. Since incremental improvements to the technology are precisely what programmers are rewarded for, forcing them to give away this valuable work reduces its market value to zero and prevents them from being successful in business. Why, then, does the "opensource.org" Web site claim that the GPL is an "Open Source" license? Primarily because the founders of "opensource.org" had financial and personal interests in GPLed software -- Linux in particular. They therefore ignored their own definition, on purpose, and added the GPL to their list of "approved" licenses. But it shouldn't be there. Other licenses on the list, such as the BSD license, do conform to the definition and are also much more favorable to programmers because they allow programmers to retain the rights to their incremental modifications and thereby to be rewarded for the advancements they contribute to the technology.