Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Advocates' Attitudes Toward Profit
jfruh writes "Marten Mickos, ex-head of MySQL, was discussing his new open source cloud initiative with the New York Times when he mentioned in passing that 'Some people in open source think it is immoral to make a profit. I don't.' This has set off some predictable hand-wringing within the movement. While some community members are ideologically opposed to profit-making, that attitude isn't held by a majority, or even a plurality."
In a large enough group, there are always "some people" (more than 1 person) who believes X.
Whether X is that they've been kidnapped by aliens or whatever. In a big enough group there will be "some people" who believe it.
So knock it off! If you cannot point to them, shut your mouth.
I like people who take open source code and sells it for use in closed source proprietary software. They're nice.
It seems there's really three different situations we're talking about here, not two as the summary suggests:
The majority of major open source projects are one of the top two options, but I'd venture to guess the majority of open source projects in general are the later.
In any case, I wouldn't want to confuse the last two options in the list as they each have a different place in the open source ecosystem.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
My brother calls this the Mother Theresa Principle. No matter how much of a saint you are, someone will hate your guts.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
If you create or add value, I think a reasonable profit is a good thing. It is not necessary to have gouging to attract people to invest in or participate in a profitable business model.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
... it's not so much a question of profit, it's what you do to get it. If you are secretive, controlling, colluding, or corrupt about it, then I'm against it. If you're transparent, responsible, sustainable, and honest, then I'm for it.
I've been known to pay for Linux software, and I've been paying for Linux-based services for years. I also use FLOSS in my freelance work.
I mean, c'mon. No less than RMS has said you can sell software if you want. Who does this guy think is more hard-core than RMS?
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
between making a profit for profit's sake and simply making a living.
public companies who answer to shareholders first and foremost tend to do the former (and aggressively so), while small businesses and mom and pop operations are usually happy with the latter.
I developed a couple of programming libraries for talking to industrial PLCs - Allen Bradley stuff. It started to cost me some pretty significant money to keep up with new hardware releases. The amount of money I made total (gross) was maybe $500. An entry level PLC costs closer to $3000.
So yeah, nobody willing to spend money on my work killed the work right off.
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
"I completely agree with you that it is a very very small minority that thinks so (and I said that to Quentin). And I am specifically not thinking of Richard Stallman. I know that he is not against business. He is only for freedom. I have no issue with RMS; on the contrary I have huge respect for his consistent insistence on software freedom. I don't think the world gives him enough credit for that,"
It seems that Mickos said "some people think it's immoral to make a profit" when he actually meant "some people don't like particular open source business models that emphasize profit over the software project". The allegation from the article is that Eucalyptus refused to integrate source code modifications that had been developed at NASA for their open source product, instead insisting that NASA should buy a license for the closed source version of their product. This sounds a bit familiar, I remember similar comments being aimed at MySQL AB when they insisted that anybody using the MySQL client library had to purchase a commercial license or GPL their application, which was also a decision that, on the face of it, benefited the MySQL corporation more than its users.
There's always some nutcase out on the fringe.
RMS himself is entirely happy with making a profit on software---the FSF used to sel lthe GNU tools on tape to raise funds.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
A big part of the dispute is that some folks aren't happy with saying, "I don't sell my software for profit, I contribute it to the community." but instead insist on adding, "And I think that's what you should do, also."
I would also like to know Open Source Advocates attitude towards ???.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I'm sure what we'll find out in the end is that people vary; many of us have pretty strong notions of what's unacceptable, and provided those notions are met we'd accept profit.
Principles:
1) I do want an end to all IP protections, and to see development of custom features and support being the primary ways support happens
2) I don't want whatever companies exist that work with open source software to sit on closed extensions forever, or for them to reject donated code that duplicates any custom code they use to support themselves
3) I think features that are not of general interest should still be opensource but funded by those with the special interest.
4) New features, if they are to be funded, can be done through bounties, but not every bit of development should be done through a bounty; there should be a main course of development for most products that happens no matter what, even if at a slow pace
5) Patents and copyright should not be used to prevent forking, clones, or competition
I would accept profits happening along the way, provided these principles are met.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
All,
This is a great discussion! I am glad to be back on /.
As often with press, I was not quoted verbatim. I stated my observation that in the world of free and open source software (FOSS), you find some people (some very few people, to be precise) who are judgmental about how other people perceive or act on open source. So when you have a certain governance model, business model, or development model, there will typically be some people who will loudly rule it out as wrong or improper or something. But I didn't say that I have anything against that, and I don't.
It's one of the strengths of the FOSS world. Differences in view are aired publicly, and many times (although not always) a higher level of understanding, or a new thinking will emerge.
We need to keep these discussions going, because as the world moves into the cloud, those same principles of openness that were developed for software code will have to somehow be applied on APIs and on data too.
Marten
Seems to me that I remember a slashdot article last week complaining about how Intuitive Surgical had patents on their DaVinci robots, and that said patents were a block to developing an open source competitor. That article didn't exactly get ignored, nor did people say "so what?"
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
He confuses 'profit' with 'getting paid'. He doesn't seem to grok the difference between an equal exchange of value and a disproportionate one. The latter leads to concentration of wealth, and concentration of wealth leads to monopolies, control of governments by those profitable entities, and wide class disparities.
Ultimately profit leads to revolutions. Simply "getting paid" does not. Can we break the ugly cycle, please?
He was just trying to make a reductio ad absurdum argument about morality to disarm, fairly silly, attacks that Eucalyptus shouldn't play nice with Amazon. There's plenty of commercial interests around that have brought a lot of added value to the Open Source movement and I'm far more concerned about the GOOG ignoring obligations than anyone making a buck.
FSF GNU, it is clear. Charging for software is completely A OK as long as the person gets the freedom to change the software without restrictions. There are some, but they do not conflict with the basic tenant.
Unlike the Paytards I would call them, that believe in licensing software only, no where does the GNU or FSF manifesto declare paying for software is bad.
I am surprised how many MBA people I talk to can't get it. No wonder these people can't handle regular calc and have to take "business" math.
GNU Linux is bought and _sold_ everywhere.
Also, given that a lot of FSF / GNU people have jobs at major corps such as RedHat, I am not sure where the documentation is to support the claim Free Software people insist on non payment of all software.
Thank God too, as I make my entire living building GNU systems and would starve if that was the case.
Stallman has never said that, and the Paytards always bring that up and make the guy out as some sort of commie from the Stalinist days or even Red China.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
What I don't like is when open source project teams suddenly decide to make the project closed-source and for-profit. System notification tool Growl on OS X is one example. Sure, a project's community can fork the project, but entropy tends to have her way. I don't think you should get into open source and then suddenly feel bitter about the time you put into it and want to make money off of it. That's like volunteering your time at a homeless shelter and then going back later and asking to be paid for the time you spent there. It's just a dick move. If you want to do something for-profit, make that upfront to the community.
I think that users are accepting of open source solutions in areas where there is a well defined niche. Think of Firefox and Microsoft IE. Users know what a browser is supposed to do and they know Firefox is "real", so they can choose it over IE and feel comfortable. Even though both are "free" (no overt cost), they are both seen as viable options.
In more specialized markets this is not always the case. If existing tools are expensive, users may assume that a "free" solution is bound to be less effective. Sometimes this is correct. There is not always a viable economic model for open source, because software developers need money like everyone else.
If software targets applications that are specialized and related to business/employment, customers may not be comfortable with a free solution. This is not a stupid position. They want to make sure that the vendor has an economic stake in the product. Buyers don't want to have to do software support on everything they use. It doesn't make economic sense.
The short version: one size does not fit all. A lot of software succeeds because it is free/open source. Some software requires money.
Why is Snark Required?
i would monetize the hell out of it. right now i can barely pay my bills with my day job, the open source thing is just kind of an interesting diversion that i spend way too much time on.
people make fun of 'marketing' all the time but people who can market things are actually kind of geniuses. if i knew how to properly 'market' this stuff, i could quit my day job and hack open source 40 hours a week instead of pushing paper around a desk that nobody cares about and will probably be automated within 5 years.
that if he hadn't been born and raised in a socialist country, he probably never would have open sourced the linux kernel. it was on the 'fresh air' show with Teri Gross.
Is it wrong to make a profit writing software? No. Why? Because there's nothing wrong with accepting money from people who want to pay you.
Is it wrong to believe you're entitled to profit for writing software? Yes. Why? Because software is like fire: no matter how much effort it takes to create it, only one person needs to put in that effort to create it and, after that, anyone can get it for no effort. If you want to ensure you get paid, take payment upfront; don't demand it afterward.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
and the major banks 'allocated resources' to mortgage securities that were basically garbage, and housing got built that immediately started to rot because nobody could afford to buy it at the artificially inflated prices of the housing bubble.
'oh thats wasnt capitalism it was backed by the govt and evil regulations'.
yeah, well, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Deutschebank, BNP Paribas, AIG, all the monoline insurance companies, a couple hundred hedge funds, mutual funds, etc etc etc, all decided to 'allocate capital' to this "evil govt program". They weren't objecting to Fannie and Freddie, they were aping fannie and freddie. all of these private businesses then benefitted from the govt bailout too.
in other words, these are the 'bastions of capitalism'. these are the guys who fund the Ayn Rand institutions and the theoretical economists and think tanks to push "capitalism" whatever that means. what it has actually meant in reality is some kind of unholy alliance with the govt to bilk taxpayers out of money, and has very little to do with a 'free market'.
People dont always object to others making money from the sweat and toil they donate to the cause. Its fine to make money from a project if your not underming its values and your pulling your own weight. But if your draining resources from the project, undermining its values, and contributing nothing, all for personal gain then expect to be hated.
Free software is driven by a desire to help people, Open Source is about helping corporations as well. So there are different attitudes from each camp to wether a specific method of making money from _Free_ software is reasonable.
Corporations and volunteers obviously have differnt cultures, if they want to play well together they need to try and respect each other even if they cant understand each other.
Unfortunately i cant think of any names of corporations that do respect Free software ideals, in sure there a dozens though !
He's basically just trying to deflect criticism about whether things that he's done (or his company has done) are bad for the Open Source community. Anyone who is ciritical must obviously think that profits are immoral and so be an ignorable nut-job.
Providing support isn't the only revenue option for software that's freely modifiable and re-distributable. Other than the most common revenue source, which is using an OSS project to attract an employer, there's:
That's like volunteering your time at a homeless shelter and then going back later and asking to be paid for the time you spent there.
To make your simile correct, it would be "it's like volunteering for a homeless shelter and then announcing that from now on you will only work as a paid employee." You may or may not get that job.
But the bigger problem here is community - open source projects are more than just code. I volunteer my time for projects that I expect to be around for a while. What you're describing is more like the facility owners of the homeless shelter telling the volunteers that they're now going to be a motel, and thank them for all their help making it a great facility, but buh-bye. "Oh, but if y'all want to open a homeless shelter next door, have at it."
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I've read Richard Stallman's writings......he is about as extreme as FOSS gets. He isn't against people making money.....at all.
The claim that FOSS advocates are against profit is either a mistaken view or a writer deliberately spreading misinformation to gain attention.
As far as attitudes holding FOSS back is that if the users find your software difficult to use, the problem is with the user not your software.
On the contrary, because it's open, there is no one central "point of contact", so there's really no realistic options for consumers.
If support is so great, why did Novell end up getting taken over for next to nothing? Why is Mandrake/Mandriva going bankrupt for a second time? Why is slackware dead (the update repository has been broken for almost a year)? Why did Caldera mutate into The SCO Group? Why is Canonical throwing anything and everything at the wall to see of something will stick?
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
To me, open source represents the ultimate escrow of code for companies that insist on having a copy "for safe keeping" in case a provider goes belly up. It also represents the best way to address potential issues of patent infringement, because the entire set of code that could be accused of infringement is available for review, avoiding unnecessary and costly litigation to force a company to comply with an investigation of whether their code infringes patents or not.
But even when RMS did his early '80s speeches at the beginning of the open source era, he emphasized the fact that open source was a philosophy that did not prevent anyone from charging for services such as packaging, distribution, maintenance, integration, etc.
The whole argument is as inane as the debate as to whether BSD or GPL represents a "freer" license. Some believe in letting anyone use the code without penalty; others (like myself) insist freedom can only occur if changes and modifications have to be published as well so everyone gets the improvements. There is no "right" answer to that question, only your own decision as to which way you think and choose to license your code.
Despite the bleating of naysayers and freetards who object to specific clauses of different licenses, it is up to the creator of the code to decide which philosophy of open source they're going to follow. Badgering and hounding people to change to use your preferred license simply makes people look like idiots; you're not going to convince someone who put years of work and thought into the issue to change their mind just because you don't like their decision.
Personally I've never run into anyone who objects to making money from open source anywhere except on Slashdot, home of the freetard. Everyone I've met in real life readily grasps the basic tenet that "I have to eat."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
And selling plain fucking physical objects.
There are a lot of market models, where companies are selling actual hardware, and where the software is only accessory to the success of the device.
- Smartphones, routers, set top boxes, and other similar devices.
In these situation, companies compete on who will manage to cram the most hardware feature in a device with the lowest possible price, trying to reach an optimal price point that will please the market.
Developping the necessary firmware is only a burden to the company if done in-house, brings more problems in the long run (support), and so on.
Collaborating to develop an open firmware alleviates some of these difficulties, and let the company concentrate in producing the most awesome and public-pleasing device, and then spend some of the cash earned to the upstream software developpers and maintainers, to make sure to have fixed and up-to-date firmware for current gadgets, and to make sure that future gadget will be easy to produce by recycling the developped firmware.
Or if the company is big enough, afford paid-for developpers contributing upstream.
Not only it costs less to share code, but for some devices (smartphone, tablet) it even helps if they use a common OS and thus have access to a common application market.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
And, it seems, they are slashdot moderators. I write freeware (as in take the executable and enjoy), freesource (as in PD... no license, take the source and go nutz) software, and commercial software. I can't tell you how many serious, sensible posts of mine about the many problems with the pay for service model, how the lack of a free to use GUI on linux holds back small commercial developers, the GPL's poisoning of commercial efforts, etc., have been mod-bombed here with "troll" and other stand-ins for "I disagree." I don't mind all that much, as moderation here really kinda sucks anyway -- I have to read at -1 in order to be sure I'll see the best posts -- but it seems pretty clear that one or more of the site mods is an over the top linux aficionado, and that screws those people who (mistakenly) put their trust in the /. mod system.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yes, that'd be fine with me -- low wages are better than no wages. And you know, a lot of the supposed plight of Chinese workers is severely overblown. Faxconn workers in dormitories, etc... those folks are making out just fine. They laid out the math for the pay, the wages, the food, the cost of the living space... not too bad, and at the end of the month, they've saved hundreds more than the average worker here can, presuming they could find a comparable job. Not so terrible.
I want to see wages have some kind of rational association with the value of the work, that's what I want. I want rational housing prices. I want people to be able to own a home and raise a family off of one job -- the idea that a tiny-ass two bedroom home can be hundreds of thousands of dollars... that's just sick. But when government makes it uber-expensive to replace the building, somehow it magically increases in "value." I want medical care that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars an hour. When I was a kid, I burned myself pretty bad, area about a foot square on my back. Leaned against the stove, sweater caught fire, things went downhill from there. My mother took me to the doctor, who took care of everything, charged us $15 for the 15 minutes or so and the dressing and ointment, and that was the end of that. I want prisons that aren't profiteering involuntary ass-fuck/beating emporiums. I want punishment to equate to rehabilitation so ex-cons are employable and have a chance at a real life just like anyone else's. I want an end to the "list and database into the hopeless felon class" mentality. I want all the lawyers employed at McDonalds. I want interest rates that don't fit the classic definition of usury. I want to be able to lend money without having to be licensed to do so, so I *can* offer such interest rates. I want a stable currency based on something of actual exchange value -- gold, plutonium, square feet of land, whatever. I don't want the government telling people what they can -- or can't -- ingest. I don't want the government snooping on everything I do. I want prohibition 2 to end ASAP. I want us out of the constantly-at-war business.
Every one of those problems can be traced back to regulation one way or another. Every one. Government is constantly, constantly expanding its role, and then torching our economy to pay for same. It makes land and home and business ownership more expensive; it puts ridiculous false values on homes; it imposes its will on countries that it has absolutely zero legitimate authority within... sorry, not buying into "regulation is good." The evidence says otherwise.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Why do majority of software businesses that follow commercial software route fail? Why has commercial Unix been decimated by Free alternatives? Why do you concentrate on failures and ignore successes?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil