The Failed Economics of Our Software Commons

An anonymous reader writes: Most software developers are intimately familiar with having to waste time implementing something they probably shouldn't need to implement, or spending countless hours making their code work with bad (but required) software. Developer Paul Chiusano says this is because the economic model we use for building software just doesn't work. He writes, "What's the problem? In software, everyone is solving similar problems, and software makes it trivial to share solutions to these problems (unlike physical goods), in the form of common libraries, tools, etc. This ease of sharing means it makes perfect sense for actors to cooperate on the development of solutions to common problems. ... Obviously, it would be crazy to staff such critical projects largely with a handful of unpaid volunteers working in their spare time. Er, right?? Yet that is what projects like OpenSSL do. A huge number of people and businesses ostensibly benefit from these projects, and the vast majority are freeriders that contribute nothing to their development. This problem of freeriders is something that has plagued open source software for a very long time." Chiusano has some suggestions on how we can improve the way we allocate resources to software development.

Comments

I am no economist, but as a geek ...

[Taco Cowboy]

As a little toddler I already developed signs of geekiness. As I grew older, my geekiness ballooned so much so that I could not, even if I want to, deny that in this life, I am a geek

Now that I am old, as an old geek, I still think that what we geek do, what we truly enjoy doing, often goes counter to the outside rule

That is why, when that guy is telling me (and other geeks) that we live by a "failed economic commons", hey, I am not surprised

If we geeks are to live by a "successful economic commons" many of the geeky things that we do, and many of the geeky creations that we have created, would not exist

The gist of the whole thing is this --- economy, whether it be "failed" or "successful" --- is in eye of the beholder

One can say that the economy of a certain country/region is good --- but good for whom? For the general populace, or for the 0.1%?

That is why, we geek don't give a flying fuck about the economy. We do what we do because we enjoy what we do. That is all

If they (and when I say "they" I mean those who look down on the geeks) don't like it, they can go jump into the sea

Re:I am no economist, but as a geek ...

[roman_mir]

Well, he is wrong, but your feeling about the economy do not matter one way or another, it operates outside of your sentiment, a failing economy would not allow you to be a developer.

Imagine if the economy was such that for you to be able to do all the 'geeky' stuff you do, you'd literally have to starve yourself to death and/or use up 99% of your normal sleeping time. I mean if you had no choice but to gather/hunt for food the entire day or otherwise you wouldn't survive, that would be the economy dictating to you that you cannot really do much of anything beyond just surviving.

The economy as is allows people to spend their time however they feel like, some forego entertainment and leisure to work on their favourite pet projects. It's like telling a stamp collector that his hobby is a failed idea economically... he'd just laugh at the guy.

You do what you have to do to survive in the economy, so you do care, you are just not necessarily aware of it, but everything you do in life is based on the health / state of the economy.

Re:I am no economist, but as a geek ...

[RabidReindeer]

Maybe - just maybe - the economy of free software is based on a different type of currency than what the Fed prints.

Not everything in this Universe is based on Dollars, Pounds, and Euros.

Heck, the Universe itself is a non-profit organization.

Re:I am no economist, but as a geek ...

[roman_mir]

and they had computers and electric power and the Internet I presume?

That's why GPL is necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

While people yell it's too offensive and impossible to get success at business (an very common opinion I've heard so many times), it at least makes the game much fair via requesting you pay for your freedom. For other licenses I think they work "well" is only because they welcome people to pillage their work as the article reveals, so sorry I don't feel sorry for those projects adopted such licenses and claim they're more friendly toward business.

Re:Marketshare

[Tom]

Oh so basically you've bounded the debate?

Show me a single argument that's not from either an anarchist or an idiot that explains how to run a country with zero taxation (ignore the tiny minority of countries that can run entirely on oil exports or such, we're talking the general case).

Regardless, you have to explain what "lawful" means.

No, I don't. That word is in the dictionary and its definition is in no way disputed.

I don't care [...] Because morally,

So you're asking me to explain "lawful" only to say that it actually doesn't matter?

Other than 400 years ago, we did it with swords and gallows and dungeons and now we've made it a bit cleaner.

You need to get your head out of your ass and into a history book. The rule of law is at least 2000 years old and while governments have always had the option of force, its actual use is comparatively rare. Especially compared to mob rule. Today, 100 or 1000 years ago - you can clearly see that when the government breaks down, violence and crimes increase dramatically.

Morally, the difference between a "noble" passing a law that he can rape your wife on the first night of your marriage and then take your money for the rest of your life, is exactly the same as changing the US constitution to allow the state to tax in like manner.

Firstly, you really need to study history. While ius primae noctis makes for a great legend, historians today are not convinced it ever actually existed, and even if it did there are no confirmed cases of it ever being actually used.

Secondly, you should explain whether you are ok with the general principle of a society or not. In this context, "society" means that a group of people can make rules for themselves and enforce them. The details (nobility, democracy, segregation of powers, etc.) are unimportant as long as you make a covert argument that basically calls anything except pure anarchy immoral. So please come out of hiding behind phrases and state your position clearly. Do you think that people should be able to form societies and enforce their rules on each other or not?

With a MORAL argument

Humans are social animals by nature.
A society can only function if it can enforce its rules.
Laws are basically moral rules written down.
Therefore, I don't see a principal difference between legal and moral arguments.

The difference is that everyone thinks they understand moral, but few people understand law. And yes, not all laws are codified ethics, that's true. Many are of administrative nature, for example.

Is there no room in this world for morals?

Morals differ, even from person to person. That's why a society needs a common set of values.

anyone who found you could just steal, rape, kill at will?

Look around you. What's happening in Syria and Iraq? What's happening in parts of Africa? Yes, my idealistic friend, this is exactly what happens when government breaks down and societies fail. Sure, it is morally wrong, but it happens.

So in fantasy lalaland, where everyone is perfectly moral and also shares the same morals, you don't need governments, taxation and all this shit. In the real world, where real humans with all their mistakes live, you do.

I won't ask you to describe how a world based purely on morals and without government "interference" would work. Greater minds have failed at that task.