Slashdot Mirror
Should Enterprise IT Give Back To Open Source?
snydeq writes "InfoWorld reports on the fight over open source 'leeches' — companies that use open source technology but don't give back to the open source community. While some view such organizations as a tragedy of the commons, others view the notion of 'freeloaders' as a relic of open source's Wild West era, when coding was a higher calling and free software a religion. To be sure, increased adoption by mainstream enterprises has played a hand in changing the terms of this debate. Yet, as the biggest consumer of open source software, enterprise IT still gives almost nothing back to the community, critics contend, calling into question the long-term effect corporate culture will have on the evolution of open source — and the long-term effect open source will have on rewiring companies toward collaboration."
But many companies are too small to make a signifigant contribution. Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software? Doing this would simply destroy the OSS movement completely.
Microsoft requires contributions... of money. Small companies that cant help develop OSS would simply be forced back to the traditional pay-for software.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The Free Open Source Software community, that builds free, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their free software?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says: everyone who uses open source software must give back, because it was free. I think people should shut that voice up. Now.
The problem of freeloaders is approached here with sticks. Although that approach may work fine for some software or other licensed stuff, they work horribly if the customer has a choice. Instead, try the carrots approach. Make users fall in love with your project, so they actually want to give back to the software. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make the heartless, money-driven enterprise IT fall in love with a bunch of code, but it would obviously be a more durable solution than punishing everyone (what about other users?) who doesn't give back.
It all gives the statement "this is free software" such a hypocritical ring to it, and that's probably the last thing you want if you're building a community. If your software is free, then everything you do with it must be a free choice, regardless of the context you're using it in.
tl;dr Forcing people to contribute to free software is (oxy)moronic.
The idea that users should give back to the community is absurd. If the "community" was at all concerned about receiving some kind of recompense, surely they would have charged the users for the software.
But Free Software is about freedom. Not only the freedom to give your source code away, but the freedom to modify and adapt software as needed. There is no concept of a user returning source code to the community except as a contributor (which, again, is a freely undertaken venture). The only time someone is required to "give back" to the community is when they seek to propagate their changes. Since the idea is to make sure everyone is able to use and modify the software as they need, it is necessary to require the new source changes.
So if I don't steal your car, but only borrow it for a day and return it washed and waxed with the gas tank full, what is the point of claiming damages? That is sheer greed. It is the antithesis of what the Free Software Movement is all about.
If you don't like people using your code, then don't release it under a licence that allows people to use it without giving back.
If you don't like people using stuff that your "community" created, what gives you the right to say how other people should let their code be used?
What harm is done if they don't give back to the community? Failing to do so does no harm to the resource. It doesn't benefit it either but neither does using a closed source solution.
There should be no compulsion to contribute, as the freedom to choose to contribute or not *must* be one of the fundamental freedoms in Open Source.
Think of their usage as advertising...
The Eclipse community should create peer pressure to prevent the freeloaders and parasites from getting away without punishment
How the hell can anyone consider "punishment" for people who use open-source software? If you make your code open-source then I thought the whole point was that anyone and everyone was free to use it within the constraints of the licence. Show me where it says "Thou shalt giveth back to the open-source community or faceth my wrath".
This mentality is outrageous and damaging to the very principles of open-source software.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
If you have to give back, then it's not "free software". A similar thing was seen in the whole "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux" debate. If it's really "free", then why the demands for something in return? Why the demands for credit? Why the complaints about freeloaders? Freeloading is always the result of giving something away for free.
Free software developers lose exactly nothing when someone uses their software.
Free software gains ubiquity when someone uses their software. Which translates into things like vendor support (drivers, etc.), the advantages of greater adoption for certain technologies (Metcalf's law type stuff), etc. etc.
Bill Gates called and wants his moral high ground back.
Seriously, if you feel some sense of entitlement because you write software that other people use, a proprietary model is a more effective way to get what you deserve. Though note, what you actually deserve and what you think you deserve may not be the same thing...
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Fair!?! WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE! What are you, a bunch of fucking crybabies?
(I know...the open source community != Nihilists, but I couldn't resist the chance to use this otherwise applicable Big Lebowski quote)
-Turkey
What, so now another condition for using Open Source software is that you should be contribruting to it?
If I use Open Office for my company, this means I should be contributing to its codesource? What if my company is an accountant agency? Should I feel morally obliged to hire programmers to do my share?
I think it's quite funny how first the open source movement seems to complaint how everybody is using proprietary software instead of the open source variants, which are (in some cases) perfectly able to do the job.
But now that some companies are alowly picking up some open source software, they get bashed for not contributing.
If you're working on open source software and you got a problem with companies actually using it without contributing, I'm sure there is a license that will let you AND open your source up to other people, AND be able to say that companies can't commercially use it.
Or... just make your source closed...
When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
Trying to argue that the spirit of Open Source to recontribute to improve products, and that we've built our company upon that spirit and so we should contribute falls on deaf ears. We've now gotten big enough that the senior management and lawyers are more concerned with our IP than with supporting the community that supported us when we were starting. It's bad enough that I'm not even allowed to post code snippets/example bind or ntp configs etc on to various mailing lists I may be on because they also belong to "us".
There is a strong push at the technical level to recontribute, to fund a couple of the projects that we use heavily, but ultimately it's the higher ups and the legal folks that say no way.
I expect things like that are the reason enterprises are leeches, and I expect there is a large contingent of technical workers who disagree with the decision. I know I do.
The problem is that you are not communicating with the higher ups in language they understand. You say, "We should recontribute because that is the spirit of Open Source." They hear, "We should give away our hard work so that our competitors can benefit from it."
What you should say is, "We should recontribute so that someone else can make IMPROVEMENTS on our modifications that we can then use without having to pay for it." You need to communicate to them that there are people out there who, once they see the changes you have made to the project, will make other changes that you would not have thought of, but that you can benefit from.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
By 'legitimising' the software, by using it. Just as IBM got people used to the idea of using PCs in a business environment, so big organisations, by using Linux and Oo, are saying that it's "OK" to use this stuff. As more and more businesses use FOSS, pressure will increase on hardware and software companies to improve support - in fact, this trend is well underway...I'm really looking forward to the time when I can go to the local store and pickup a laptop or whatever and it's got Linux pre-installed, I get home/to the client's site, plug it in and all my peripherals 'just work', I can install and run my old windows legacy apps 'out of the box' etc.
We're pretty close already...(those of you that have not tried - for example - Ubuntu lately, try again. I just installed on a brand-new laptop that came with Vista as standard and everything worked pretty well, including traditional problem areas such as video, wifi and bluetooth. Impressive.)
Here we go with this crap again...
Listen folks - there are NO open source leeches. It is WRONG to put open source out for ALL to use and then start calling people names because they're using the software EXACTLY AS YOU ALLOWED THEM TO DO.
If you want people to give back what they add THEN PUT IT IN THE LICENSE. Of course, that will limit the appeal of your software, but such is life.
In the past ten years I have been working in multiple companies that have had businesses based on open source software. Very often these businesses not only used open source software, but also substantially modified it in order to adjust it to the needs of the enterprise, to make it scale or simply to fix bugs in code that otherwise has been rarely exercised.
In effect, this created a fork of the software, internally inside the enterprise.
These changes can be maintained inside the company, binding company ressources, or they can be put back upstream. Code can be part of what differentiates you from other companies, or it can be code that does stuff you do which others do as well - then it is infrastructure code to you. All infrastructure code inside your company you should share as open source quickly and reliably, because that not only improves the code but also shares your cost with others.
Very often companies do not do that - instead they are maintaining their fork of code internally, failing to integrate changes from the outside into their own fork, and binding valueable development ressources inside the enterprise in reproducing changes from the outside indepently. The reason for that is usually that there is an intellectual property regime which requires clearance of code before it can leave the company, but insufficient staffing for the actual clearance process.
As the enterprise slowly accumulates and integrates more and more open source projects to maintain their business they are slowly dragged down if they do not manage the process of giving changes back upstream properly.
"Well, to put it simply you are not very smart."
I beg to differ. I know my worth in the market place and know there are many other opportunities out there with managers who actually "get it." Why have a false sense of loyalty to a company who won't work with you even after many lengthy discussions. Money isn't everything to me and I'm sure it's not to many others.
"Obviously in your contract it states that every code (or anything for that matter) that you created in the company was IP for the company but nothing prevented you from taking the idea to a next level say have the process well defined and work with the community to develop it."
There actually wasn't anything in my contract that said such a thing about "code." I also didn't have a contract. By law if I did that would expose the company to many many other issues. Most US companies are "at-will" and don't give their employees contracts because it makes hiring and more importantly, firing, much more difficult in the US court system.
"I beleve we must stand for what we believe when what's being asked from us goes against it or to harm it but as far as I can tell you just acted like a snotty kid who had his precious toy taken away."
I'm glad we agree about standing up for what we believe in but I didn't have my "toy" taken from me. I simply asked to publish the code and setup a way to discuss the project/process and code base with the greater community. They thought they could throw money at me; now who's childish?
"Congratulations on losing a job based on that."
Ahem, I didn't lose the job. I quit. There is a huge difference.
This is most definitely NOT a "tragedy of the commons" scenario. Open Source and Free software are available for unlimited duplication and have no inherent scarcity, unlike the allegorical commons. The fact that they benefit from more widespread usage due to feedback and bugfixing further turns this stupidly misused comparison on its head.
But there's a collection plate.
You don't HAVE to pay, but you should. If you don't the museum may have to close.
But does that mean the museum isn't free?
No.
It's called having scruples and most people don't have them.
your old employer crossed a line you believe strongly in. You reacted with what you though was best.
That makes you a far better man than most. I tip my hat to you.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"We should recontribute so that someone else can make IMPROVEMENTS on our modifications that we can then use without having to pay for it." You need to communicate to them that there are people out there who...will make other changes that you would not have thought of, but that you can benefit from.
They may be out there.
That doesn't mean they aren't working for your competitors and keeping their changes in house.
Sometimes the ball just lies there dead.
You can't promise your boss that opening the code will yield a timely - and significant - return.
The "tragedy of the commons" does not apply. There is no scarce resource here. The cost to a Free Software developer of one more IT shop installing his software is zero. Since a small fraction do contribute, each additional installation produces, on average, a net positive contribution. There are no "leeches". Everyone is welcome to use the software whether they can contribute or not. The more the merrier.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Parent is one of the few things worth reading on this silly thread.
A copyright license that requires the performance of work is not free. It's not libre and it's not gratis. It's you making somebody do something in exchange for the use of your copyright. There is no distinction in this context between requiring the exchange of money and requiring the exchange of work.
FOSS will never penetrate a business that derives competitive advantage from software development unless somebody outside the business destroys that competitive advantage with a superior FOSS product. A corollary of this applies to businesses who mistakenly think that they derive a competitive advantage from software development.
FOSS is like the Blob, though (most of the time). When the blob gets big enough, it destroys the salability of the for-profit software software it encompasses. You can't expect people to quit making money (or to quit thinking that they are making money) from private software until they are swallowed by the blob.
That said, things are changing, though slowly. We have started an internal open source endeavor to start people thinking about sharing (the company notoriously reinvents the wheel all over the place). Hopefully later people will understand that and understand what it can do for a big company and then start contributing to public projects.
So while I think things will improve, my point is that large enterprise companies have many obstacles to overcome to allow their developers to contribute to open source and unless you have people who really push it, many developers manage to leap over a few hurdles only to be tired down by all of them.
Open Source should STFU and get busy designing a decent desktop interface or unified graphics API for Linux and stop wasting time bitching who is or is not contributing to "free" software.....or start charging for it.