Slashdot Mirror
'Open Source Creators: Red Hat Got $34 Billion and You Got $0. Here's Why.' (tidelift.com)
Donald Fischer, who served as a product manager for Red Hat Enterprise Linux during its creation and early years of growth, writes: Red Hat saw, earlier than most, that the ascendance of open source made the need to pay for code go away, but the need for support and maintenance grew larger than ever. Thus Red Hat was never in the business of selling software, rather it was in the business of addressing the practical challenges that have always come along for the ride with software. [...] As an open source developer, you created that software. You can keep your package secure, legally documented, and maintained; who could possibly do it better? So why does Red Hat make the fat profits, and not you? Unfortunately, doing business with large companies requires a lot of bureaucratic toil. That's doubly true for organizations that require security, legal, and operational standards for every product they bring in the door. Working with these organizations requires a sales and marketing team, a customer support organization, a finance back-office, and lots of other "business stuff" in addition to technology. Red Hat has had that stuff, but you haven't.
And just like you don't have time to sell to large companies, they don't have time to buy from you alongside a thousand other open source creators, one at a time. Sure, big companies know how to install and use your software. (And good news! They already do.) But they can't afford to put each of 1100 npm packages through a procurement process that costs $20k per iteration. Red Hat solved this problem for one corner of open source by collecting 2,000+ open source projects together, adding assurances on top, and selling it as one subscription product. That worked for them, to the tune of billions. But did you get paid for your contributions?
And just like you don't have time to sell to large companies, they don't have time to buy from you alongside a thousand other open source creators, one at a time. Sure, big companies know how to install and use your software. (And good news! They already do.) But they can't afford to put each of 1100 npm packages through a procurement process that costs $20k per iteration. Red Hat solved this problem for one corner of open source by collecting 2,000+ open source projects together, adding assurances on top, and selling it as one subscription product. That worked for them, to the tune of billions. But did you get paid for your contributions?
Why is this an article? Did these people actually expect to receive compensation?
I have been using their software since the mid-90s with version 3. I have never paid them anything. I bought a third party book on it once, they may have gotten some revenue from that.
Red hat has hired and payed a huge number of people to develop and contribute to open source code. They've made massive contributions to Linux and are a key part of why it has become what it is today. Fedora/RHEL/CentOS may not be your favorite flavor but the simple fact is that in order to compete against them your favorite flavor adopted things made by them and had to compete with their usability. There are dozens of things in your home right now which are better because of Red Hat's contribution, not to mention all the things you use online.
I'm not rich because of Red Hat but I have gotten paid. Sadly I was a broke teenager when their IPO happened and the people I strongly advised to get in on it didn't listen.
Red Hat has been one of the biggest contributors in the open source ecosystem for a very long time. For the kernel in particular consider unlike many of the other major contributors they are not writing code to supporting their own hardware.
>However it does seem like it would really be a great gesture of goodwill, to give some large amount of money (say $10k) to the top 100 RedHat contributors, however they felt like defining it...
Seeing as how they employ a bunch of full-time open source developers, I'd wager that a good chunk of the top hundred contributors probably already work for them.
1100 npm packages
What does the Node.js package manager got to do with Redhat Linux?
If you look at the top most contributing devs, you'll notice that they are actually on the pay roll of companies who rely on linux. If they weren't already employed by Red Hat, they would probably be at Intel, Google, even IBM themselves...
Not all programmers are poor. If they are anywhere near competent (and open-source software makes a great portfolio that is easy to show around), they'll certainly get hired, perhaps even get paid for their open-source hobby.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The freedom of other people to make money with software you write -- provided they figure out how -- has always been part of the deal.
Thee free software economy is still capitalism, it's just capitalism where you're paid for what you do for a specific customer. The proprietary software market is one where investors in effect attempt to collect fees for a naturally unlimited resource created, almost always, by other people.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Have gnu, will travel.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Founders of the Atlanta Linux Showcase, which was the main Linux convention in the late 90's, worked their asses off, for free, to make the event happen every year. After a few years Red Hat gave the major contributors some stock, for free, as a thank you. I'm sure they did the same to others, this is just the case I know of.
In addition, Red Hat hired many contributors to open source, and gave them a good job so that they could continue to develop software, not just for Red Hat but for all of us. Remember Alan Cox? Me too, but there's many more. I'm sure all of those great technical hires got stock and each is getting a bit of the $34 billion.
Red Hat has always been less selfish and more fair than most software companies. They've always reflected open-source values, IMHO.
I got and get paid by using their contributions to the kernel, among other things. Open Source is a barter economy.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
They do, just indirectly. What we get is an operating system, sometimes directly (Fedora), sometimes more or less directly (CentOS), sometimes indirectly (Amazon Linux, which more or less is CentOS), that we can use for whatever we want, and don't have to pay for. We don't get direct support for any of these, but we indirectly benefit from those who do.
And we make money using those operating systems as part of the platforms to implement solutions for our employers.
Open source contributors? In most cases, they're sharing something with the rest of the community, including RedHat, that solved a problem for themselves or their employers. Often they're getting help with that project by sharing it.
And in many other cases, they're paid by RedHat - projects like GNOME, Linux, and so on, get funding from both RedHat and the company buying RedHat.
So... while on some level the headline is true, in practice it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how OSS works, and who benefits from it. Nobody goes into open source and says "I'm going to work on an accounting package I have no intention of using and I'm going to donate it to RedHat who'll never mention me again." To read the headline, that's kinda what you'd think goes on.
People get the full value of what they contribute and then some.
The money RedHat is getting reflects how its employees and shareholders worked together as a company. They deserve every cent. Linus Torvalds doesn't, believe me, he's more than adequately compensated.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
However it does seem like it would really be a great gesture of goodwill, to give some large amount of money (say $10k) to the top 100 RedHat contributors, however they felt like defining it...
The top 100 Red Hat contributors may very well already be on Red Hat's payroll - being paid to work on the software they're contributing to.
I used to really be into building my own RPMs, tweaking existing ones, etc. It was quite a learning experience in many ways... one of which was to note just how often the names of Red Hat employees appear in the changelogs for many, many different software packages.
#DeleteChrome
There is another aspect people are ignoring. Linux has been corporate controlled and developed for years. A lot of work has been subsidized, and therefore directed, by various corporations. Linux is long past the point where it is primarily a "hobbyist" and "volunteer" effort.
The Linux foundation reports that 75% of kernel development is done by corporate sponsored developers. Who tops the list of these corporate sponsors? Red Hat.
https://www.computerweekly.com...
Remember: not only RH pay salary for FLOSS engineers and supporters...
No, but Red Hat tops the list and IBM is #4:
..."
"The top 10 organizations sponsoring Linux kernel development since the last report (or Linux kernel 2.6.36) are:
1. Red Hat,
2. Intel,
3. Novell,
4. IBM,
5. Texas Instruments,
6. Broadcom,
7. Nokia,
8. Samsung,
9. Oracle
10. and Google."
"... more than 7,800 developers from almost 800 different companies have contributed to the Linux kernel since tracking began in 2005. Of particular interest perhaps is the finding that — seventy-five percent of all kernel development is done by developers who are being paid for their work
https://www.computerweekly.com...
and Red Hat contributes A LOT to open source too. If it wasn't for Red Hat there would be no "Linux" as we know it.
IBM too. Red Hat #1 and IBM #4 in terms of corporate development of Linux. All together 75% of kernel development is corporate.
https://www.computerweekly.com...
Marx assumed that all the gravitation effects in the solar system existed in (sun,planet) interactions. His theory falls apart as soon as you add a single moon. Even without moons, (planet,planet) interactions are often strong enough to really mess up space probe navigation.
Imagine if Newton was smart enough to figure out the inverse square law concerning (sun,planet) but wasn't smart enough to conclude that the same law applied to (planet,apple). Congratulations, you've got Marx, where the smallest scale of interaction is (overclass,underclass). My how the sun in the heavens exploits, exploits, exploits.
And this trick still works. Point to any sufficiently bright and shiny object ($34B will do nicely) and then cue the universal chorus of shade woo.
Plus, don't get me started about Mercury taking more than his share.
Plutos, unite!
And there's another obvious point. If Linux were not free, it would not exist - let alone have any value. IBM has its own, perfectly good, proprietary unix platform. But they want to sell Linux - because people want to use Linux. And people want to use Linux because its free, which made other people want to use it. If the open source contributors to Linux had intended to eventually be compensated for their code, Linux would not exist. So you can't come along once Red Hat has become a viable business and say "I wrote some of the software - where's my payout?".
Red Hat's payout is for having become one of the main go-to companies for Linux support - and consistency as a platform over time. And now that many Linux users are migrating to Amazon's cloud, Red Hat's business is likely to shrink. But IBM's cloud business has nowhere to go but up - unless it fails. But it's a $36 billion bet they feel they have to make.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I am fine with programmers who are willing to contribute to open source projects without any compensation. I am fine with companies like Red Hat that find a way to make money off the generous contributions of others. I am fine with companies paying their employees to work on open source projects that will benefit the company.
What irks me are all the 'open source zealots' out there who insist that anything closed source is some kind of evil thing. If you build something and take great personal risk to get it ready for market, you are often portrayed as some kind of 'greedy capitalist' if you want others who get value from your product to actually pay you something directly for your efforts. You built it. You own it. If you want to charge something for it, then you better make sure it adds more value than the price you are charging for it. Just don't let anyone tell you that you are less than human for not wanting to just give away the fruits of your labors.
And just like you don't have time to sell to large companies, they don't have time to buy from you alongside a thousand other open source creators, one at a time.
That is right, they don't buy from me. Because I don't ask for money. They couldn't buy from me, even if they wanted to. I'd just point them to gitlab or github or sourceforge or my own website, depending on what it is they want and wherever I put it.
And I'm fine with that, otherwise I wouldn't have done it.
But distributors like SuSE and RedHat were controversial from the beginning because even if the legalese fineprint said something else, they did everything in their power to create the impression that they were selling software.
I personally don't have a problem with the business model, save that it could be a bit more honest, but this particular blurb someone in PR wrote is just... stupid, insulting and false.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org