Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Summit Report
An anonymous reader sent us a
Report on Open Source Summit
that you might want to read. I was scheduled to attend, but
LinuxWorld drained me to much- I'm kinda bummed, but this
article will give you a good overview of what apparently
happened. Its the Open Source world colliding with the
biz world, and the sparks definitely fly.
"LinuxWorld drained me to much"
You mean "too much".
"Its the Open Source world"
You mean "It's the Open source world".
Thanks for making the Linux community look slapdash at best and illiterate at worst!
I was at the Summit. Thomas Scoville paints
a picture that sounds somewhat more acrimonious
and wandering than it was. Wayne from HP in particular didn't "fix his sights on Eric Raymond" quite the way the article said (I sat directly
across from Eric), although he did say words to the effect of "you haven't run a business so how would you know". In general, I thought the meeting went very well, with the participants treating one another civilly and with respect.
He is right that there isn't a one size fits all approach for business to adopt with open source software, and we realized as much during the course of the meeting. It's a pretty significant paradigm shift for those who are used to dealing
with closed, proprietary software systems.
For instance: We have a product that our HR department uses and have all the source code. Furthermore, the dbms this product is based on is something we run elsewhere in another capacity so we are very familiar with it.
Yet we don't mess with the source code, nor would we buy from a third party. Why?
1) The original company only guarantees performance for work THEY do on otherwise UNCHANGED code.
2) Our internal programmers are busy enough with other work that we don't have time to constantly be messing with their source code.
3) Just plain intertia. We bought this software from ABC Corp--let them fix it.
OK, you ask, but what about competitors reselling your code? Put it in your advertisements. "Our code is so good even XYZ prefers it over their own stuff."
Also, competitor-selling increases the marketshare of your software, which increases the mindshare of your company which increases requests for your other services (tech support, docs, etc).
BTW, I don't think RMS says you have to give the source to anyone who wants it--just to the people who buy the binaries. So you could sell the whole package to your clients. They are unlikely to pass it on to other companies.
This article makes it quite plain to see. GPL
and Big Business Don't Mix
End of Story
mrcl
I think you are going off the deep end. Engineering without commercial constraint results in high tech products that nobody wants. Look at GNU Emacs. A marvel of engineering, but with no appeal at all to most computer users. The problem with the software industry today is that it is dominated by Microsoft's way of doing business. They are much like a 1970's US car manufacturer, ripe to be taken by the first competitor (the Toyota of software) that can deliver a reliable low cost product. Maybe tha Toyota will use Open Source, maybe not.
I think you've missed my original point.
There is not a large enough market for anything we create for anyone to want to write the code for free.
Yes, the problems we solve may be interesting, but they're primarily interesting only to a very, very, very narrow class of customers.
I'm not worried at all about open source software competing with the work we do -- in fact, I encourage it. Why not use an open source piece when it's as good or better than anything else out there? We regularly spec Apache for our projects. Our clients have nothing against that.
But the stuff we write is really only useful to the people who are paying us to do it -- them, and their competitors. And I can definitely see why our customers might want to keep our software out of the hands of their competitors.
Firms like yours (and mine, I might add) cannot be complacent. The rules of the game are changing right now, and to stay in business, you've gotta learn to play by the new rules. IMO, those rules are:
... and they don't own the "source code" in their respective fields.
1. Eventually, there will be a free implementation of all software. There will be a huge body of code that's free for the taking, to change and modify for the benefit of anyone who needs it.
2. Companies that marry themselves to the "gotta own the code" model will get driven out of business by those that realize that code is free.
3. The one thing that *won't* be free is the attention of very smart people. That will always be in short supply.
Ergo, companies like ours can survive by giving away source code to help build the free code base. This will hasten the day when programmers, integrators, VARs and consultants get paid for service, not for installing copies of our closed source software. We get paid for our time, not for the source code.
Of course, the more businesses think like you, the easier it will be for businesses like mine to put you out of business. The days of Gates-like wealth are numbered. If you're a programmer, start to think like a lawyer or doctor, not like a monopolist. Those professionals earn handsome incomes selling their time
Thank God for the FSF and like-minded folks. I may never be a billionaire, but I'll have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to build a constultancy thanks to the generous work of free-software folks.
what Linus said. World Domination tomorrow is unrealistic (I'm paraphrasing), next week is OK. The suits involved in this are trying to shove the Linux peg in the "new" Internet business model hole (a la Yahoo.) They're looking for the way to make the quick buck. They want money NOW and then cut and run.
You're right, we look for those opportunities all the time. Object-orientation is nearly a religion for us. We write our code to be flexible, extensible, reusable.
But I want the first chance to sell it into a new market. I don't want someone else selling it to a potential client of mine without putting in the research and development that I've paid my programmers for.
Am I evil? Or just stupid? I really am honestly searching for an answer here, not trolling. If I pay people to write code, I have to get that money from somewhere. (And yes, at our company, a rising tide lifts all boats -- everybody benefits, not just the fatcat capitalist owners.)
I disagree. The suits ride on the shoulders of the engineers/developers. And they make the lions share of the cash too. Just look at Microsuck. How much of what they do (and what we hate) is driven by MARKET GOALS, MONOPOLY BUILDING, UNITS SOLD, etc. The product doesnt even matter to them any more, evidence their shoddy quality. I hoped that with the Net phenomenon (sp?) that the techies would gain more control of the process. Looks like that hope is fading.
I actually have never understood the value of selling support. I think most support contracts are overpriced, designed to suck cash and blood from someone you've got by the short hairs.
When my company charges for the work it does, we either say, "here's how much it will cost," or "pay us by the hour to do it." If the client chooses the former option and we go over budget, we eat the cost (mmmm... red ink is tasty!). If they choose the other option, they're still just paying for actual time.
Either way, the client is paying for actual time spent (or my best guess in advance as to how much time that will be). We don't charge a flat licensing fee. If we were to reuse code, we might, but then again, we might not. It's in my best interest to meet our customers' needs at the lowest price point possible.
I want to get rich, sure, but I won't do it like Bill Gates (multiple shrinkwraps) or Larry Ellison (exorbitant service contracts). I want to make an honest buck.
So that I can steal all your customers.
Its about stupidity. I'm relying on YOU being stupid enough to give me YOUR code.
So fork it over, OSS rules. Especially when I can just take your IP from under your stupid noses.
But the stuff we write is really only useful to the people who are paying us to do it -- them, and their competitors. And I can definitely see why our customers might want to keep our software out of the hands of their competitors.
You said in an earlier post that you're already free to reuse the code and sell it, perhaps to your customers' competitors. Whether it is Open Source(tm) or not makes no difference to your use of the code. Of course, a good relationship with your customers may mean you don't sell the same thing to their competitors. Here, Open Source or not is irrelevant. No-one is forced to give away source to people who don't recieve binaries.
Yes, the problems we solve may be interesting, but they're primarily interesting only to a very, very, very narrow class of customers.
If it's only interesting to your customers, you lose nothing by giving your source to your customers, and they lose nothing either. If they don't want their competitors to have it, they won't give it to them, will they?
If your customers specifically want closed source code, so they can give out binaries without giving out the source, then the issue is with those customers and not with your company. Then we'd need to convince the customers, not your company. But that doesn't sound like what you're describing.
I suggest you reread your own postings -- for insight. They sound like an emotional argument to justify your present scheme. I can't see anything in there that is a reason to giving your customers the source to the programs they pay for.
A shameless display of public fellatio and ingratiating bogosity. Did any news come out of this? Or is this just an opportunity to masturbate with adjectives and rehash the same 'us' vs 'them' punditry that shows up every day.
One thing for sure... I can't blame slashdot for tearing big chunks out of my work day anymore.
I actually don't mind giving the customers source, under a license that says we get right of first refusal for any modifications, and that they can't give it away to anybody else.
Sure, they won't give it to one of their own competitors, but they might sell it to someone I was going to try to sell to. Why would I want to enable that?
We regularly sign non-competes with our clients that state we won't do work for other companies in their industry for some period of time. I have no problem with those, we expect those types of conditions.
I want to be able to reuse the technology I create, apply any new ideas we come up with, to new projects for companies in other, non-related industries. The GPL would take that privilege away from me, declaring that any other potential client need not pay for the research and development we've done.
(We do about half our projects by the hour, the other half we do essentially on spec -- we get an idea, we research it, we develop it, we try to find someone who'll use it.)
I am not against open source, specifically the GPL; I just don't see how I can integrate the model into what we do -- and I'm looking for suggestions.
I don't ever feel like I'm getting something done unless I'm going against ``the flow''...
There will always be a need for custom software and there will always be people who can profit from creating it! The company I work for uses loads of custom software that isn't available as open source now nor will it ever be.
Sure, there is a lot of open source we do use but we are willing to pay for that which is not.
What people in the business of writing software need to be aware of is what open source is out there and how it compares to their product. If the open source is better than what they are producing then they will need to improve their product or risk fewer sales. Today my company purchased a software package after looking at varoius open source packages in the same category, they just didn't come close to the quality of what we end up paying for.
There is also a need for software such as air traffic control systems. Find one of those that is open source and I'll eat my hat (it says "GEEK" on the front of it).
Whether it is big business or free open source, you can't define one in terms of the other. See Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.
Absolutely right of course, until copyrights were first introduced the entire world was socialist, then someone came up with the idea of restricting the right to copy the works of others to insulate original artists from the effects of competition, and thus capitalism was born
ermm.... or something...
Yes, and under GPL the client can then turn around and sell your source or modify it or give it away.
The selling of expertise is what makes lawyers and doctors professionals. Dr X doesn't have a monopoly on asprin, and if she discovers that an asprin a day reduces heart attacks, she doesn't restrict the treatment to only those patients who see her. If Lawyer Y comes up with an astounding argument, Lawyer Z can use it too.
What GPL DOES DO is remove your ability to profit from not-sharing. Your ability to make a living becomes more professional and less entrepenurial, which, when you look at NT and Bill Gates looks Darn Good to this Anonymous Coward.
The article says it was a Hewlett-Packard guy, and O'Reilly's list of summit participants lists Caccamo as the only HP representative. It seems likely, since he's described as having lots of marketing experience. His e-mail address is given, too.
you embody all that is bad about slashdot. It's not simple grammatical mistakes that make the Linux community look bad. It's people like you.
So what if my competitor gets my code free and I paid for it? It isn't the programs you run that make your business... it your people and your data. I had the vision and made the software happen. I got the lead time on working it out. I got the experience. I got the data.
Most every business already uses MS WORD, MS EXCEL and other MS CRAP. Does this give competitors a big advantage... No. If my business is so untenable that I do well only until a competitor reverse engineers my code/practices then all OSS might do is speed up the inevitable. OTOH, if my competitor can only suceed by eating my droppings, I'll leave them in the dust.
The world relies on MONEY. There are more people that will take your precious OSS code and profit from it.
The movement goes on, because it reduces development costs and increases profits. Lets not kid ourselves, this is communism at its best.
Encourage OSS Code! Its wonderful. Where else can we get FREE source code and developers? Beats the hell out of (gulp) *paying* them! And the best is, the stock value rises and we get more profit to spend. Not on -heaven forbid- the employees, but OURSELVES!!
Code OSS. Way to go! I dont even need to decompile it!
For some kinds of software (e.g., software that's widely used), building free software is a viable business model. For others, like yours, it probably isn't. If somebody tells you his business model is ideal for everyone, he's probably wrong.
I expect that most widely-used, utility-like software genres will have a significant share of the market taken over by free software eventually. Others probably never will be; especially if the field doesn't have a large enough population of user-programmers to support a free program in that niche.
BTW, I admire RMS greatly, despite him being a wacko.
Of course a company that makes its money selling software isn't going to be too hot on GPL for its main product. Duh. What we need to do is convince companies that produce software as a byproduct to release these tools for free.
E.g., I work for a financial company as a Web designer. There is software we've home-grown to run our site that might be useful to others. What we need to do is convince business leaders to let us GPL this stuff, because
a) The potential advantage to the competitors from getting general tools for free is likely VERY small.
b) They get security- if I quit, the GNU community will still update and maintain the progam they use for FREE and
c) We use Apache and PERL and wouldn't be squat without free software. There should be some sense of moral duty to give back to the community. (yeah, right, I know, moral corporations....)
This is how professional, paid developers can increase the amount of good GPL software. Turn our byproducts over to the world, and keep a list of companies that have contributed so OSS users can turn their business their way.
What's with all of the grammar police on here? Get the hell away you losers.
Note to grammar police: The software development community is the LAST place you should attempt to pawn your unsolicited lessons. We don't give a shit, so get lost.
Ahhh you are such a fool.
The FSF and its followers has been so delusional about the real world it is somewhat astounding. The only real conclusion one could come to is that the advocates are all grease-pig burger flippers that couldn't make it in the real software world so now they whore themselves out trying to show the world.
As a professional software developer I'd like to say: Screw You. We need a good knee busting union among us because there's far too many weenies. Then again, most of the weenies can only code barely worthwhile clones of commercial software that is always a good step behind, so it's hardly a threat. It is humorous when they delude themselves into believing it's a new world order though.
Keep on believin' sucka. While you contemplate your fabulous new world I'll be raking up the dough from professional software development.
And it is sad to see the suckers love to be the sheep feeding them their code. FSF is for suckers: The stupid ass suckers that applaud seeing big companies that make billions of dollars start using free software to save paying a programmer.
The stupidity of it is astounding.
I myself have wondered about this as well. To a technical person, it is a racket. However, there is a class of person out there who either cannot or will not take the time to figure things out for themselves. They are, for reasons of ego, time-value, sheer laziness or other reasons, unwilling to do what it takes to learn the use of the tools of their livelihood or lifestyle on their own.
These people are willing to exchange money for someone else to do it for them or to show them how to do it. Because they willingly make themselves helpless before you, you are free to charge what you want. I can't think of ANY software package I've ever seen, save for the most exceedingly trivial, that doesn't come with some sort of rudimentary documentation to allow people to use it. You either dig through the manuals or helpfile and attain some level of mastery on your own or you pay the rate established by those who DO know
to instruct you. I wouldn't say this is dishonest.
It can be tedious,unchallenging and repetitive, but it's not dishonest. You're merely meeting their value system with yours at a mutually beneficial point.
Bill Gates and Larry Ellison both ship voluminous manuals with their various products. For many in corporate America it is worth their time to put their staff on a plane and send them off to be trained on basic functionality by someone who is experienced rather than have them founder for 2-3 months trying to figure out what is important and what isn't.
Like anything in a market economy, it's all about perceived value.
Are you wearing a suit?
Do you have pointy hair?
x
Personally, I don't see any particular need for
concern.
Open Source has survived the "slings and arrows"
thrown at it to date. All its adherents need do
is stay the course and all will be well.
Easy. Really.
Were people saying things like this in the 1960's?
Things did change, but more of a perturbation than a revolution (or do I just take the changes for granted?).
I _would_ like to believe otherwise.
Any observations?
x
...since it is so vital to your work.
If you don't get the spelling in your program right you will get a syntax error.
If you don't get the grammar right--you'll be lucky to get a syntax error. More likely you'll get a logic error.
Same thing with English.
Look at GNU Emacs. A marvel of engineering, but with no appeal at all to most computer users.
Because most computer users are M$ users, you hit the nail on the head. I think most *nix users have a genuine appreciation for GNU Emacs.
M$ has done a wonderful job 'dumbing down' the computer user.
Seconded.
x
This is good writing.
Want to take up residence on slashdot?
x
Sometimes you can't see the forest through the
trees. And sometimes you can't see the Mac truck
that's about to turn your innards into crow
snacks.
There is a tremendous amount of *genius*
level talent churning out free software. Why
would these people choose to gravitate towards
common goals? Who knows. But once things really
get rolling nothing will stop it.
You're going to lose.
That would mean it's smoke, right?
Hmmm.. Maybe steam. OK
GCC and PERL are just crap and Richard Stallman and Larry Wall are rank amateurs who couldn't program their way out of a C64. Yup!
I don't know what we'd do without you to clue us in on this. Damn, man, I'm just gonna pack my bags and go home. Free Will?Self determination?----What the hell was I thinking?
Bah. You are so worried about your life as a programmer that you can only frame the conversation on "what do I get out of it" and the only way you can envision making money is to sell object code only and keep your source secret.
You write "what about the developers" Well, gee, lets see... Alan Cox, Rasterman, Linus, JWZ seem to be making money. Indeed, most programmers I've met work for companies that DON'T sell the software they write... but they get paid all the same.
Think of it this way, the more proprietary the coding world gets, the higher the barriers to entry for ISVs becomes and the richer Bill Gates gets-- but for playing the game his way you can get a few crumbs from his table... unless you challenge him too much. OTOH you can help change the rules and open up the world of opportunity.
Oh yeah, software development isn't the only business in the world and some retailer might just open source their software that they paid for because they can start to drive the way all retail businesses operate and get themselves a nice headstart.
But please ignore me, I'm an A.C.
And just that marketing department busy selling it too!
This just makes me laugh. Delusional certainly, but not with respect to software...
man, you need to get some fresh perspective on your life...
Do you have any ideals at all? Do you have any longterm goals of improving your *quality* of life? (Getting stinkin rich doesn't count. It will probably make you even more miserable than you are now. "Help, someone is going to stell MY money!")
At the end of the day, us "idealist" will probably have made more impact in history as contributors, than you will ever have made. People like you consume, w/o giving back.
but, hey, whatever makes you tick...
Libertarian society is an oxymoron. Libertarianism is radically individualistic and does not fit well into society.
First off, let me say that I am not a programmer-- I'm a graphic designer--so all of my opinions come from that perspective.
I think Open Source Software has many merits, but I can't see how it will interface with the rest of society at this point. If I need a piece of software and someone is willing to give it to me for free, that's great for me. I save money because I don't have to pay for it. Life is great.
Now, let's say a programmer comes up to me and asks me to share my services for free. I'd turn him/her down. Why? Because in order to survive, I need money to purchase food, clothing, and shelter, and the people providing those items aren't likely giving those away. If I had a family and kids would they appreciate my ideals of Sharing while they sat out on the street, cold and starving? Probably not.
If the programmers of the world were sealed off in a vacuum, they may be able to share freely and survive. But until the entire _global_ community is willing to work that way, I can't see the Open Source Movement affecting the majority of the software industry.
RKM
Just a note.
While other companies can get the code, and use it, they also have to release it if they distribute anything with it. If you go with the GPL license, if some part of their program uses your GPL code, then they have to release it all under GPL. You could then see THEIR code.
The Point is about sharing codes, so as there isnt a sole company ruling all the market, and also because with sharing the code, everybody gains benefits from it.
It's about an inability to see the business model. I, for one, can't.
I run a small software development firm. We do custom applications that run on intranets and websites. Our customers pay us to solve their problems, and they pay well.
We keep the source code -- unless it's contracted as work-for-hire -- but it goes into escrow if the client requests it. That way, if we bail, if we fail, they're covered. If we find another use for our own code, we're free to reuse it, sell it again, adapt it to another project for another client.
I don't understand why we would want to GPL our software. What advantage is it to our clients if we've solved a problem for them that a competitor could gain access to without paying for it, funding the development?
I understand how and why individual programmers should contribute to GPL and open source projects. I can understand why companies like Red Hat and IBM find it advantageous to support something they don't control, can't control, like "RMS/Linux." But what about companies like mine? There's a world market of perhaps a half dozen companies for anything we do.
Am I just confused? Are we supposed to simply release the source code to our clients for the work we do, so they can hire someone else to fix it later, or fix it themselves, but not provide a license that allows them to give it to anyone else? I think RMS would answer with a resounding "No!" But that's the only way I can see it working for us.
If indeed your world market can be saturated by a half dozen companies, then your software may be better off being proprietary. Most of the advantages of open source are not going to be available to you.
It's fairly simple to see if GPL'ing your software is a good move. Does GPL software currently exist that can be used to serve your customer base without large scale modification? If so, does using this software result in productivity gains that justify you GPL'ing any modifications and additional code you write? If you can answer these questions affirmatively, then you probably ought to take a serious look at doing it.
If the answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask if the added benefit of additional people working on the code is going to outweigh the financial benefits of keeping the code proprietary. If you indeed serve a small market, the answer to this question is almost certainly no. In that case, go on as you are.
Please note that these are opinions based on looking at it from a business perspective (IOW, you want to turn a profit). I realize that they fly in the face of much of the free software philosophy, but you have to realize that for some companies there are only two alternatives: make proprietary software or cease to exist. Whether these companies should cease to exist I'll leave for another day. ;)
Mac Truck
;) whether it's great isn't the point (I consider it good work otherwise I wouldn't have released it), the point is, here comes the Mac Truck! There is open source outside of just linux- it's _bigger_ than just linux.
;)
Another Mac Truck
Still Another Mac Truck
Yes, that's right- GPLed Mac software, there's the source right there
Mind you, when I am up to it I'll be putting out linux apps right alongside the Mac apps, but the source _is_ open, even now. Things are already rolling in places that might surprise some people.
All Hail the Mac Truck!
Posted by sweeheng:
/. community for peer review. :-)
I have no business experience, so this is just a thought experiment.
Suppose you release the base code under GPL. Now, every company has its own distinct needs and modus operandi, so the base code needs to be customised to suit their requirements, right? So convince your clients that they are paying for this customization service (when, in fact, they are paying for the initial development cost of the base code as well).
Now, what happens if another software company hijacks your code (base or customised)? Well,the customised version probably won't suit another company, so you are not losing out there. The problem lies with the base code. But is this really a problem? I think not. Under the GPL, if this other software company uses your base code, they have to release their source as well. That means, YOU have access to their code. If they are of any good, they will improve on your base code. And if your company is of any good, you will improve on that. See what is happening here? A very positive feedback effect that constantly improves the quality of the base code. A win-win situation for all. If there is more than one competing software companies, I am sure your clients will be very pleased to know that by paying you solely, they are in fact harnessing the combined intelligience of several other software companies in the long run.
Will this make a good business proposition? Is this a sound argument? I am no economics/business expert - just GPLing my ideas and releasing it to the larger
I think it all comes down to how well the GPL stands up in court, especially when devious companies attempt to circumvent it by incorporating proprietary code into their products and keeping everything close source.
It wasn't a conference about business. It was about open source software and its trappings, and representatives from business were there, just as there were representatives from the open source community.
If you have to boil it down into camps, I suppose you could say there were the Free Software Hackers, the Suits, and the Hackers Who Sell Their Work. But trying to force people into fewer slots than there are people always manages to lose something.
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
Posted by Tim Little:
Most of my calls to my employer's support personnel have been due to bugs in the systems they are supporting. With a pay-per-call system, the software vendor is effectively selling us the software, then making us pay extra for the bugs!
Oh, and the response ranges from "try switching off the computer" (losing all my work in progress and risking file system errors) to "Oh, yes, that's been a problem for ages - here's how you can try to get around it" (follow on with mind-twisting contortions to avoid a basic flaw in their software).
But so does a monastery. So do major professional sports leagues. Nobody complains about socialist monks or revenue-sharing socialist NBA owners.
The GPL actually restricts freedom. Nobody can "sell" a GPL product.
The GPL is a software license. Maybe it threatens me if I'm a (proprietary) software company, or my fortunes are tied to one, but that's not true in my case. I'm not trying to sell anything; if I do GPL something (RSN, sometime around Slash 1.1 :) it will be audio utilities - software that, in various ways, helps reduce my cost of doing (non-software) business, and increases my flexibility in doing business.
Nobody can "sell" the linux kernel to somebody else (I dont mean selling an individual copy, I'm talking about selling the rights). This goes against the most fundamental tenets of capitalist structure - which protects the right to property and the right of sale.
The kernel belongs to Linus, doesn't it? Or "belongs" to the Community. The rights to property and right of sale are there in the license(s); it may be screwy from a traditional POV, but they're there (IANAL).
Even if you dont recognize it, the FSF/OSS/GNU/Linux phenomenon is socialist in nature.
I'll go alert the FBI. Look, nobody has a monopoly on truth. There is much to be learned from both Marx and Adam Smith, from Keynes and Friedman; a fundamentalist of any stripe is often more dangerous than an adept, open-minded pragmatist.
--
--
=8^
Thanks for making the Linux community look slapdash at best and illiterate at worst!
slapdash® is a registered name. I'm afraid you'll have to remove it from your post. While you're at it, remove the rest of the words as well :)
Don't give Rob all the glory. Many of us (myself included) do our very best to make slapd^H^H^H^H^H/. look slapdash and illiterate.
BZZZT!!
--
--
=8^
But the GPL and business can mix or coexist; not all business is proprietary software. It may become vitally important, as profit margins shrink, that businesses large and small embrace as many Free (or free) tools as they can, rather than be forever dedicating a chunk of their budget to proprietaryware and bigger and bigger hardware requirements. This makes the GPL also a Capitalist Tool, if I may borrow Mr Forbes' line. But if it can also de-FUD-ify the word "socialism" for the citizenry, I'm all for that. It may make for a healthier political climate.
--
--
=8^
People have been saying things like this for millenia. The 60's was just a recent iteration of mass idealism. The top-level post was nice to see, but it was a bit Over The Top; recognition of Open Source® doesn't do a thing to change things like sweatshop labor or corrupt politicians. Sometimes I think we should all spend a little more time in the Big Room, and less time arguing on these pages.
Things did change, but more of a perturbation than a revolution (or do I just take the changes for granted?).
I think it was a revolution of sorts, but assassinations and covert ops got in the way. Every action breeds an equal and opposite reaction: the 70's "New Right", now known as plain ol' "conservatives" have, in a sense, worked hard to reverse (or create FUD about) many changes that came about back then. We now have a military-assisted War on Some Drugs... mass ennui about minority rights, women's rights, abortion rights, labor unions... censorship of music... compassion fatigue... consensus support for military ops against small third-world countries... a general hostility towards dissent...
Of course the major thing I did in the 60's was potty training - I'm an amateur 60's-ologist, not someone who really lived through all the upheavals. Ask instead some open-minded person who was actually there. Don't necessarily go for the textbook version, either.
--
--
=8^
You mean the part where Intel tries to create "a unified vision of Linux"? Right, but again, they do not understand and this is why they will fail.
As Thomas Scoville wrote in his article about the Open Source Summit: "Ultimately, Open Source is about letting go." Open Source is like Aikido or like Zen: It is action without control of the conscious mind. The moment you try to steer or channel it, you lose it.
Even Intel will have to learn this.
>I think I've decided, after something like 15 years of professional software engineering, that what RMS is reputed to believe is actually right. Commerce is fraud.
... And those buildings designed with AutoCAD? All are just about to collapse, I'm sure.
Yep, nothing good ever was produced for hire/profit.
The Mona Lisa? Crap! The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? They oughta just spread paint remover on that sucker and get rid of it. The Golden Gate Bridge, Fulton's steamboat, Stephenson's rocket; all should have been melted down into scrap iron. And as for software, I guess people just think they're having fun when they play Quake, Starcraft, Warcraft, Age of Empires, Civilization,
I'll grant that money can motivate people in the wrong direction. But the primary motivation of most hackers isn't necessarily to help others, particularly less computer literate others, it's more typically to do something that hacker needs.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>Open Source has survived the "slings and arrows" thrown at it to date.
It seems to me that it's Open Sourcers who are the ones throwing the slings and arrows. It's open sources who compare selling proprietary software to slavery, who call people like Tim O'Reilly parasites, etc.
If open source is "all that and a bag of chips," it will become the dominant paradigm, no insulting people necessary. If it doesn't, then proprietary folks are providing useful services, and shouldn't have to endure the self-righteous indignation of people who aren't provide those useful services themselves.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
So that I can steal all your customers. Its about stupidity. I'm relying on YOU being stupid enough to give me YOUR code. So fork it over, OSS rules. Especially when I can just take your IP from under your stupid noses.
Where the hell are these people coming from?!?
Did Slashdot just get a blurb in Windows NT Magazine, or something?
And, sorry, my router won't let you have my IP number.
Furthermore, the Open Sound System is old, give ALSA a try. It's much nicer.
I liked the article. It gave a good sense of the confusion in the business camp about just what this Open Source thingy is. I always said Linux is a tool for learning more about computing. It makes you smarter by using it. Maybe the same can be said for Open Source and the Harvard Business School types?
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
I think the most important point this article makes is one it does not explicitly state: that losing our soul would be the worst outcome of all of this, while retaining our soul is a win no matter what. If all the money leaves, and we keep what we believe, we win. If the money stays, and we keep what we believe, we win. Regardless of the money, losing our soul means losing everything. Never forget, free software means freedom, free software means security, free software means that the best is produced.
I want to know the name of the guy that
dropped the laser-guided Clue Anvil on
esr was. Even if it wasn't so direct as
Scoville said, it's been a long time coming.
In fact, it's kinda unclear why a guy who wears
jedi outfits, spends time posting pictures of
Gates-as-Hitler, writes poor, rambling essays,
and reportedly lives off his wife was even at
a conference involving business. Anyone have
a rational explanation?
Felix
While it may be true that the GPL doesn't sit well with big SOFTWARE companies. I think you will find that it is starting to sit increasing well with non-software companies.
After all, the real clients are IBM, HP, and Oracle, but rather Free Software needs to sell to people at Nike, Sears, or McDonalds. Non-software companies potentially have a great deal to gain from free software (no more client licenses, no more downtime). After all there are way more programmers working outside the computer industry than inside.
Just something to think about.
I'm sombody, and it's the only editor I ever want to use for anything beyond quickly editing a file in /etc (I use vi for that).
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
Currently, we have two basic theories at work here. There is the Stallman's theory of the plain value of unlimited sharing and the Raymond's theory that, basically, unlimited sharing can be compatible with unregulated capitalism. I have a great deal of respect for both men, but they are not primarily historians, philosophers, economists, businessmen, or politicians and I don't think they've "got it" yet.
The strongest area of Stallman's theory, I think, is the long-overdue critique of intellectual property, especially the patent system, which has become very much a tool of corporate power. The strongest area of Raymond's theory, I think, lies in its tolerance of a broad range of approaches. The greatest weakness of both theories, it seems to me, are their unwillingness to deal with issues of organization; they are drenched in the individualist anarchism that has become popular in our time.
The shared software community suffers badly from its unwillingness to organize, in my view. To take a perhaps-slippery computing analogy, it is as if one tried to design a computer, but believed that operating systems were unnecessary, that somehow programs would resolve all issues of resource sharing at run-time and that no program would ever, for instance, step on another's memory location.
At the other extreme, we have the sick-corporate model of development, where it is believed that autocracy can solve all programs, and that organization can somehow substitute for creativity. Perhaps a computing analog of this would be Microsoft.
Such analogies are slippery things at best, and it is easy to construct variants which justify all kinds of horrors--that is not my intent. But I think, in the long term, some of the problems of sharing source code are best resolved by some sort of formal organization, and the sooner we accept this, the sooner we will begin to make progress in this difficult, important area.
The prisoner's dilemma is a negative-sum game. Software economics is (we hope, anyway) a positive-sum game...but we are still arguing over the rules.
Illiterate?
Nah: go see what the thread on SMP devolved into..
Illpunctuate? maybe..
Who cares?
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Look, Open source software arrises from the need to "Get the job done".
It comes from people who need to do something but don't have the tool that they need to do the job, it either doesn't exist on their platform or is ridiculously expensive to license. These people have no desire to sell their software, they just want to do the job at hand.
It's not the be all and end all of software development, it just lets me get my job done.
Deleted
> high tech products that nobody wants. Look at GNU Emacs
Hey!! I resemble that statement!
Emacs is the greatest thing since sliced bread!
(BTW, does anyone know the origin of my first statement? The s/resent/resemble deal? I seem to have forgotten it)
I can't tell by your tone if you're for OSS or not.
:-)
I do agree this is communism at its best, but I prefer the term "democratization of capital". It attracts less flames.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
You work for Microsoft, and have one of those "f*ck you, I'm fully vested" lapel buttons, huh.
Some of us believe in quality over profits, and don't want programming decisions dictated to us by the marketing department. Our kind will grind your kind under the heels of our boots.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I don't think RMS framed his "argument" well.
Allow me to tell you how my company works.
We have a compliment of 15-20 Sun Enterprise servers for imaging and insurance apps we purchased. The cost of the proprietary software is almost neglegible compared to the total cost of the project (this is the argument MS likes to make against Linux). What we spend most for is (a) people on staff to maintain the code (to the tune of $70-$80K per year), and (b) a hefty annual support contract in case our maintainers get stumped. That's 3 lucrative full-time jobs made by just our division of the company.
About a year ago, I proposed we ditch HP OpenView for our network monitoring, and go with a free solution (Sean MacLawran's BigBrother + Sendpage).
I used old desktops, a spare modem, an extra outside analog line, and 1 copy of Caldera OpenLinux.
Total hardware cost: $0
Total software cost: $49.00
Everybody got shafted and nobody got paid, right? Not really. Because of business requirements:
Annual support contract from Caldera: $1200.00
And because everybody wants constant changes to the system (ie, why does this keep paging me, how can you make the system do X), we needed a Perl programmer (me) to make the configurations and maintain the system.
1 Linux admin/programmer: $65,000/year
If the product were not Open Source, this position would never exist, because no one can make changes to a closed system. Multiply me by the number of companies that might adopt the product. If anything, we need more programmers, not fewer.
just my $0.02
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
"Cast your bread upon the water" as my dad likes to say.
The whole point of the GPL is that other people can't take your code and use it to shaft you. If you make a program, GPL it, and company X modifies the code, thank them for their contribution.
You as the inventor still hold the trademark on the name.
I think Sendmail is the perfect example of this model. Sure, I can download and install it myself, but then I know how to do that. Most folks wouldn't want to try, and I don't think that will change. Will companies still pay a hefty sum to have the personal attention and support of the inventor? You bet they will! My company would pay for support contracts on ballpoint pens if they were available.
That, and if it's good code you will be revered as a wise and holy man by your adoptors. Then you can write essays and books and sit on panels at expo's.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
The above replay speaking about doctors and lawyers brought to mind instantly the often-compared similarities between Open Source and my arena, the Scientific Community. There are many areas of comparison between the two, including that chemical companies also do Research & Development, expecting to make money as do programming companies with their programs. If a chemical company creates a drug, say, they will patent their compound to protect it. They will then have some 7-10 years to make money off of the product, at which time competitors can come in and make money off the exact same product. Meanwhile, academia is researching away, and publishing everything they do. Like with Open-Source hackers, one big motivation for professors, post-docs, and grad-students is recognition. Of course, the one big difference is that we in academia are also motivated by getting grants (it's more expensive to buy and maintain a NMR, IR, or Mass spectrometer than it is a computer to code on, and the stipends don't hurt either. ;) Those grants, of course, come from either the same big companies I just spoke of, or the government (did I read something here on /. about programmer grants?)
;) Perhaps your programmers would save themselves some work by having a lot of source-code to reuse from outside sources. But that's not possible without Open Source. After all, if one looks at Windows systems, there's alot of redundancy. How many virus scanners, drawing programs, word processors, calculators, notepads, etc do you need? Sure, there's need for choice but I see a lot of wasted resourses too.
Of course, there are many marked differences between producing chemicals and producing code, but I think in a big-picture kinda way, I've pointed out some of the similarities here. Perhaps the same kind of balance can be reached by Open Sourcers and Big Business? Maybe (though I fear patents in programming as yet) a six-month patent, where you must release the source-code, after which, it's open season on your code? (How would enforcement work?)
One last thing:
Our internal programmers are busy enough with other work that we don't have time to constantly be messing with their source code. One important rule in science is, do the library work before you go to the lab/computer. Odds are, there's a lot of information already out there by people who did similar stuff to you. You can get insights on your issue, and save yourself a lot of effort. Code reuse is not unheard of in programming, as I understand it.
Cygnus is probably closer to doing what you're doing, however Cygnus makes significant contributions to free software (they also have proprietary software as well). They not only sell products (both proprietary and free) to end-users, like Linux distributors do, but they offer support contracts, even for free software like egcs. For instance, Corel has just recently hired Cygnus to modify the egcs compiler in ways of particular interest to Corel. Those modifications will be offered (although they may not be accepted) to the egcs team, for incorporation into the standard compiler.
The biggest misconception of free software (as opposed to "open source", which is free software stripped of its moral undertones) is that it is supposed to benefit the developer. It benefits the user (who often is the developer too).
Aside from adopting a Cygnus-like model there probably isn't much room for free software in your company. Free software is about comodity software. It represents what people need to get the basics done, and the successful free software (like Apache, Bind, Sendmail, Linux) represents software that enough people needed that it becomes ubiquitous. When you're doing support for proprietary software, or developing software for proprietary systems that only a select few will need, then chances are not only is free software not going to give you any gain, it won't give much to the community either.
Think of it this way: if someone could own the air we breath, they would have a great business because people need to breath air and therefore they will pay an arm and a leg to get it. As the air owner, you will naturally be opposed to making the air free, and will question the benefits of any model which includes free air. You want to maintain your monopoly on air. But the rest of the people recognize that such a model isn't a good idea, that air should be free, so that people can breathe without having to pay you for the privilege. Similarly, applications need OSes and utility programs; networks need communication and routing protocols; etc. etc. When the need is strong enough, someone will develop a commodity solution for that need, in the form of free software. While some business models can make money from such commodity software, most can't. It simply isn't going to happen.
You cite the GPL, but the GPL is quite a different beast than say, the BSD or FreeBSD licenses. The GPL (and to a lesser extent, the LGPL) has particular provisions which were introduced specifically to make sure that the GPL'd software does not become de-commoditized, as can, and often does, happen with non-copylefted licences like the BSD and FreeBSD licenses. You ask "Why commoditize in the first place?", so choice of free software license is irrelevant. Others, however, once commoditizing their software, ask "What do I do after commoditizing?" and that's where choice of license becomes an issue.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
The GPL protects the property of the developer. The developer owns the code, remember, and it is his or her choice as to whether the code should be freely exchanged or kept proprietary.
Let's say I own a home (completely). It's my right to let people into my house without allowing them to sell my house out from under me. The only difference is that with the internet, I have a house that millions may visit with no discomfort on my part (aside from bandwidth).
You're right, the Stallman model of free software is absolutely socialist. But that in and of itself does not mean that it's evil. Emergency care in America is socialist (care is given according to need, and the cost is shifted to those who able to pay it). Many utilities are socialist in nature, in order to ensure coverage.
I am a libertarian at heart, but I recognize that capitalism has its appropriate uses, and socialism has its own appropriate uses. What is the factor of socialism which makes it fail in an industrial economiy? It is a distribution-centric model, and as a result, production suffers (whereas capitalism is a production-centric model where distribution suffers). Well, information already modifies the typical supply and demand capitalist model, because once created, it can be reproduced at will for almost no cost. The costs associated with distribution, such as shrink-wrapped boxes, storage media, etc. are handled in the capitalist model (this is why Red Hat charges $40 for a RH 5.2 box). Cost of production, aside from initial developer cost, is virtually null. Therefore, following even the supply and demand model, the price will be virtually zero (because supply is infitately greater than demand).
The question then is, how to account for developer cost. Well, using Red Hat as a model, some of that may come from the company charging for distribution. Without production, there can be no distribution, and so it is in their interest to make sure that production continues. This cost will be recouped in the distribution charge. In the more common case, however, there is no direct compensation for the developer. The developer devotes his or her free time and effort to the product. His compensation is often a completed product, which may not be possible without sharing the source code and allowing the product to be developed and tested by other people in a free software model. Sometimes, the compensation is more indirect (for instance, developing a killer app which will get more people to use the OS, which will mean more potential developers and testers as well as more interest from other developers targetting the new users, which means more potential support for the platform you're using).
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
Are you absolutely positive that there are only half a dozen companies that can take advantage of your software? Narowly construed, perhaps, but I suspect that if your software were available you'd find a lot of applications that your code could be put to that wouldn't require much modification.
If your code is GPL'd, you're going to have the same access to the code they produce from your code as they do to the code *you* produce. And, if you don't like that, you can always go with something like the NPL, and require that you get first crack at modifications (not that I'm advocating the NPL here).
The point is that if other people take advantage of your code that benefits you as well, through the bug fixes & feature add-ons that they produce. Sure, you're no longer selling IP, but then, it sounds as if you never really were. You're selling the expertise of your programmers. The key is to make sure your customers understand that, and that's a marketting issue. Since the most important thing here (other than the skill of your programmers) is mindshare, wider distribution of your software can only help.
Perfect timing with today's Dilbert desk calendar!
The PHB wants our hero to "do a demo of the new product" and needs "a banner that says 'quality'."
Your point is well taken and one of the reasons I left industry to work in higher ed. Putting food on the table is great, but there are other things in life much more important than the almighty dollar.
I, for one, am glad to see as many meetings with big companies that respect Linux happeneing. I remember, when I first used Linux, not even Byte had an article on us, much less anything by ZDNET. It was a time when everyone thought the hot new thing was using NT as a server.
It is nice to see a breath of fresh air.
- Sam Trenholme
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
It wasn't an HP representive, it was me, Larry McVoy.
While I appreciate the image of a "laser-guided Clue Anvil" it wasn't really intended that way. Eric sometimes gets going about stuff and he sometimes forgets about certain areas. I was just reminding him. I think people are making a much bigger deal out of this than I had intended.
Uh, more like, the other company takes your base code, and builds their product on top of it. They *might* do some minor tweaks or bug fixes in your code. So you get back a couple of minor bugfixes in return for the base code (which would probably be more than 90% of your competitor's product, assuming your code is written well). Your competitor's product could be as good as or even slightly better than yours, so they can charge a similar or even higher price, yet you did most of the work. Is that fair?
People always bring up companies like Red Hat as examples of companies that make money off open source. Sure, RH is making money of OSS, but did they write that much code? No. Granted, they did write a little bit of code that has migrated to other distributions, but for the most part, the developers aren't making any money from the OSS they developed. The leeches are. The people selling support and books, who contribute very little to the code itself.
The only developers who seem to make any money at all from OSS are the famous ones, and they all do it indirectly. ie: Larry Wall has his job because of the fame he got from writing Perl. What about the other people that contributed to Perl? Linus got his current job probably in part because of his work on Linux. But what about the many other kernel developers?
People keep saying it's possible to make money on OSS. But every example I've seen has been of non-developers making money. What about the developers? I don't want to provide support or sell T-shirts. I want to write code, and I'd like to make a living at the same time.
Last I checked, Linus wasn't making money off of open source software. In fact, Transmeta is more closed than most companies -- they won't even reveal what it is they're doing.
JWZ works for Netscape. Netscape has one OSS "product", which is a "Loss Leader". Their business model requires that they sell closed software (or other things, now that they're part of AOL) to make money. They don't make much off of their one OSS product. You might want to look up what the term "loss leader" means.
Alan Cox is one of the "famous" that I mentioned before. He's hired to work on OSS because he's well known (and for good reason). We can't all be famous though. And if you think about it for a minute, you'll realize that if you have two companies selling Linux supporti, say Red Hat and Linux Care, and one of them has developers, and the other one doesn't, then the one with developers has more operating costs, but no more income. That means it's in the best interest of companies that sell support to have no developers!
Does Linux Care have developers? If Linux Care has no developers they can probably offer support at a lower cost than RH. It'll be interesting to see if they start cutting into RH's revenues. I wouldn't be surprised if places start getting Linux distro's from Cheap Bytes or something, and their support from Linux Care.
I don't know anything about Rasterman, other than the fact that he makes a window manager. How is he making money? Certainly not off of E.
I contribute to OSS as well, BTW. But (like Linus, and many others who contribute to OSS) I also have a "real job".
I know there are some developers who can make money off of OSS. Most are doing small custom hacks though where 99% was pre-existing OSS code. essentially, we end up with a model where those who do 99% of the work get 0% of the money. Think about it. 99% of the code in Linux's kernel wasn't "paid for". I'm not saying there's anything *wrong * with ginving away code -- I do it myself. My point is that those people who contributed that code have to make a living doing something else.
I'm not trying to argue here. What I'm trying to do is find a way for us developers to make a living on OSS. I like OSS, and would rather write OSS for a living. I'd like to make more than a sales clerk while I'm at it though. I also don't like to write custom hacks. That's for plebes. I like to write real systems. Unfortunately, it's the people who write real systems that seem to get no income from OSS though. Then the custom hack leeches come along and make money off of it.
>> Hey!! I resemble that statement!
i __think__ its from the "East Side Kids" comedies from the early sixties, though it wouldnt surprise me if it came from the Marx Bros.
Another similar one: "the feeling is perimutual, i'm insured!"
Les Schaffer
I first saw it in Garfield, but I doubt that's where it came from. I'd agree with the previous post, that it's probably the Marx Brothers, or maybe the Immortal and Benevolent Stooges...
----------------------
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
Congratulations! You see the flaw.
The GPL proponents say you can charge for your services, but the problem is what one firm paid thousands of dollars for, another can get for nothing, unless you and your clients do the "EVIL" deed of protecting the source code.
The GPL people think we should all hold hands and "share", but the world doesn't work that way.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Under GPL, you can provide the source to just the client, but the client can do whatever he/she wants with it, including giving it away to others or post it on the net, and you don't have the right to stop them.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
It depends on your business. I worked for an Insurance provider that created a complex system that was the lifeblood of the company (If the system fails, the company fails). They made a large investment in it, and if competitors got the code, they would have an easier time entering the market than my company did, and that would allow them to offer the same service for a significantly decreased price.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
This is from the GNU Manifesto. Your only supposed to make as much as a sales clerk, apparently.
Excerpt:"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either.
BTW, I do believe in free software, but not the GNU model, because of stuff like this
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
You would probably want a MPL/QPL type license.
The problem with the GPL as I see it is that it takes ownership of the code away from it's creator.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I think there is something about GPL that is being missunderstood. I believe GPL works this way: I develope some software and sell it under GPL I only have to provide the source to the client that paid for the software, not to everyone.
You say that some company can get for free what another paid thousands to get. What's the difference with propietary software? If I want to, I can give for free something I've already been paid for.You continue selling software to people who will buy it.
Those of us who know will continue using and contributing to open source. And spreading the word to those who don't know.
But as more and more people realize that open source costs them nothing, you're left with only selling to buisnesses who can't understand.
Suits me fine.
We all gotta do what we can.
This sig is false.
Having these big name companies invest in open source is nice, but I don't really see what the big deal is. If they are complaining that they don't understand, let them leave.
Those of us who believe will continue on.
This sig is false.
The Prisoner's Dilemma.
http://www.spectacle.org/995/pd.html
--
-- God is silent. Now if we can only get Man to shut up.
This just clarifies the point again. GPL and business do not mix. Why? because Linux/GNU/FSF is SOCIALIST in nature. All you libertarian and capitalist freaks out there freak out and scream "GPL is about FREEDOM!". The GPL is not about freedom. The GPL embodies the ideal of socialism within the rules of a capitalist structure. The GPL actually restricts freedom. Nobody can "sell" a GPL product. Nobody can "sell" the linux kernel to somebody else (I dont mean selling an individual copy, I'm talking about selling the rights). This goes against the most fundamental tenets of capitalist structure - which protects the right to property and the right of sale. Even if you dont recognize it, the FSF/OSS/GNU/Linux phenomenon is socialist in nature.
-Laxative
um.. I think you've misunderstood me.. I think Linux is great. I also think socialism is great. I wasnt pulling a McCarthy. It's just that I try to convince people that Linux/GNU is socialist and they start blabbering about "freedom" and all that crap, pushing some bullshit.
I should take more care when posting...
-Laxative
Ok I'll bite. Each side needs to give a little. We can't have everything be OSS. Those things that are built upon, and that everyone is going to need (like OS, dev. tools, system utilities, graphics, common applications, and devices) should be as open as possible. These are the areas that need the stability and planning that happen best using OSS methodology. Basic standards need to be set just like they have on the internet today. The RFC mechanisim is great. Those affected can comment and brainstorm, and when it is over things can get done knowing that most of the show-stoppers have been worked out.
:-)
We also cannot have everything owned or patented by someone. This will force new solutions to new problems, and stifle innovation in general. Basically some entity gets a majority share, and we are forced to deal with their view of things.
Right now NT has a lot of momentum going for it because their is an inter-application data communication model there. (I am aware of its many faults, but it is currently working none the less.) Lots of good software is being mangled to fit this model because no-one can/has? agree(d?) on any other. People who just use a computer need this. They don't need the consulting, downtime, fees, and upgrades packaged along with it.
Linux also has a lot to offer. Good price performance, and customization, and support are just a few of the things that I am happy to see. People who build computing solutions will enjoy the fact that it can be administered easily and remotely, and that it is fast, and that it does not crash often. Currently the time gained here for users is lost though because the applications, and in particular the communication model between them has not yet developed into something robust enough to build upon.
I work for a reseller, and yes we do sell pretty expensive software, and services to make sure that the customer gets the return they are looking for. We have done well so far. In every catagory of software we deal with, I am seeing a trend toward lower cost software, that is easy to use, and that does not require much administration. As a consequence, the market is trading advanced capability for intergration, and standardization. (If I can't spell, please deal with it as it is late.... ) This is in general what people want. They really don't care how it gets done, as long as it does not break the bank, and it works reliably.
Again I am talking about users, not us. They are the people who use the tool because it enables them to perform their job in a manner that is both comfortable, and effective. Learning about an OS does not interest a lot of them. We on the other hand have an interest in how things are built because we are builders. It is us who have to set things up, and in general, keep them in motion, and drive across town to fix a PC!
Why can't people make money by funding the infrastructure of computing, while selling their applications? They can keep those closed as long as they have value. Companies that build upon a stable foundation will get the most return on their development investment, because they can focus on coding their ideas into things people can use, and their customers will be able to use their applications together to get their tasks done. If they are utilizing a particular piece of open code to build upon, and they need more out of it, it should be done OSS style. That way others work is not broken.
The way I see it, the longer an application exists, the more refined it gets. Pretty soon it's overall value goes down because its market gets saturated. Basic computing tools as mentioned above are logical canidates for OSS because there is little to differentate them. Pretty hard to make a mint on a text editor, or perhaps a compression tool. Even a new one. When the existing cash cow apps begin to lose their value, then it is time to start building new ones rather than milking the old ones.
If things are done this way, then eager companies can get the differentiation they need to compete, life gets easier for the sys administrators, and the hardware people get to compete on more levels than just cost.
Later,
Blogging because I can...
Maybe this isn't the forum to try to explain how I feel, but here goes:
What I took from the article was an overwhelming sense of optimism. A sense that, dammit, the human spirit IS getting better, that despite all of the talk about Generation X, we ARE progressing, and despite the horrors of our race, that we can, somehow, make things better.
I admit it, I cried when watching contact and the alien said to Jodie Foster's character:
"You humans are so interesting. You have the most beuatiful dreams and the most horrible nightmares."
and I kinda got choked up when the writer wrote:
"though it may test my audience's suspension of disbelief: maybe
this is the beginning of something different, something wonderful. Maybe Open Source will be the beginning of a grand new
adventure for the business community."
Isn't it wonderful, despite the fact that we are talking about human greed and mischief (i.e. business), that people can try to make something better? Isn't amazing that in our small ways we can hope, dammit, that we can shape the world through trust and caring and community even in the face of the 'nightmares' that we live in now?
Maybe I am overreacting, but I see this as one of humanity's beautifdul dreams. Maybe after reading Larry Wall's piece on deconstruction I see the human spirit going more toward freedom and trust. Squabbling aside, strong logic aside, I see OSS and Linux being a spirit-changing phenomenon.
Voluntary socialism is compatible capitalism, if you want to look at it that way.
However, I wouldn't even grant that the GPL is socialist; it just requires a different model of exchange of value. If you write a program based on my code, then instead of paying me in up-front fees or royalties, you pay me by freeing the source for my use and that of others. Yes, this does create positive externalities for those who contribute little or nothing. But so does the practice of science or medicine or law.
I understand that, but there are many more constraints in engineering projects than commercial constraints. The goal should be to create the most functional artifacts within the constraints imposed by resource and technology limitations. The model should be that if you do a good job, which includes understanding the end user requirements, and letting people know what you can do, you will be rewarded. Instead, the primary goal is to maximize profits. The model is do the least and charge the most. The problem is that its hard to decide what "least" and "most" are, so people take the optimistic route, underestimate the first, and overestimate the second. The result is that we get artifacts which do too little, and cost too much. I say artifacts rather than products, because this same phenomenon can describe things which are not necessarily sold.
Let me give you one simple example. One possible principle of engineering is "One cannot solve a problem without clearly stating it." This seems like it would be uncontroversial. However, I have worked for five companies since 1982, and in only one of them was I asked to write a design proposal for any project I have worked on. I write them as a matter of course, but even then, nobody knows what to do with them. Nobody reviews them, because there is no review process. As a result, my projects often don't do exactly what the managers wanted. Sometimes I provide a general, flexible solution where a quick hack was really wanted. Sometimes I do the opposite. Sometimes I don't understand the problem and solve some other problem. If I write a project proposal in which I state the problem and my proposed solution, and even then I frequently get it wrong, how can other people get it right when they don't write proposals, don't do designs, don't do anything like requirements analysis, and don't have any feedback to correct their initial misunderstandings.
The one company which had project proposals in their process only had a process because they wanted to say they were ISO9001 compliant, and they needed process steps for that. The project proposals were completely for show.
So, why is commerce fraud? Fraud is "A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain" according to my American Heritage Dictionary. Since no company says "We want your money, and we'll do anything short of working hard to get it", and their intent is to do anything short of working hard to get it, they are
Of the five companies I have worked for, only one has been in the PC business. Two were in the Electronics Testing business, one was in the compiler and language tools business, one was in the bank software business, and one is in the PC graphics business. The business model for the first four was not set by any vision of emulating Microsoft that I could tell. They were to my mind motivated entirely by unalloyed greed.
I think you could even make a case for a model motivated by greed but tempered by wisdom, but that seems to be too much to ask.
This is a great article. I think I've decided, after something like 15 years of professional software engineering, that what RMS is reputed to believe is actually right. Commerce is fraud. I don't know if RMS believes it in fact, probably not, but it seems that when commerce drives engineering, quality is the victim. The value of Free Software is that people are creating things because they care about how well they work, and now how much lucre they can squeeze out of customers, so quality is the only criterion.
The GPL is not socialist, it is libertarian.
One of the tiresome things to listen to in hacker circles is people calling things "socialist" when they really have no idea what socialism means (or the range of meanings that it can have), nor whether the topic under discussion fits the meaning at all.
In fact, the GPL is very property-rights oriented, as anyone who would bother to listen to what RMS says would figure out immediately.
But then, why bother figuring out what RMS is saying, or what socialism is, when you can use other people's uninformed opinions as a crutch.
--------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
The business world? We are not trying to impress the business world or make ourselves look more credible in their eyes. Even if that was the goal, we reached it long ago - businesses are tripping over each other to become 'Open source' friendly. /. people are not english or business majors, and don't put much stock in grammar as a way to judge another person, even if they do notice it (I do) and can write well themselves (I like to think that I can). /. compared to other forums is flawed logic as a result of a grammar error. Nerds tend to be careful about getting the intended meaning across. Notice the ranting recently about what double negatives mean (on the SMP thread) - they were debating whether negatives applied to a word are added to make a stronger negative or multiplied to cancel each other out. And programming syntax often finds it's way into subject headings. Meaning - the important part of any communication - is given top priority, and I like it that way.
Each other then? I would guess most
One thing I haven't seen very often on
Just another difference between hackers and suits.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
So who's evangelizing for Linux, and helping people learn about it, in the schools? Not the elite universities where you graduate $80K in debt ... what's happening in the state schools, the community colleges, and for that matter, the high schools? Is anyone working on an open-source Logo? (No, no, not that logo -- this Logo!
--sethg, who has a degree in education, but is working as a tech writer because, well, see above about debt...
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I don't understand why we would want to GPL our software. What advantage is it to our clients if we've solved a problem for them that a competitor could gain access to without paying for it, funding the development?
Turn that around: how much advantage would it be for you to be able to get all of your competitor's code without having to pay them for it? Once you rephrase the question from "Is it costing me anything?" to "Is what I get back worth what it costs me?", things change a bit.
While it is nice to see Linux getting some publicity, it is saddening and somewhat frightening to see the suits all positioning themselves to control and profit from the Open Source movement. Given enough chance the suits will kill Open Source through sheer greed and ignorance. If you didn't get a chance before read
this article. (The part about Linux starts about halfway through the article.)
Scares the shit out of me.
I think you're okay the way you are right now. GPL-style development is better suited to big foundation-level projects with lots of volunteers(Linux, GNOME, etc.) than to specialized niche products. Also, it's the mainstream stuff that gives proprietary software vendors their power over consumers and each other. Your company has a more direct relationship with its customers, so you're forced to actually provide a quality product with decent support.
You might, however, consider a more restrictive license along the lines of the NPL or even Sun's Community Source License. From what you've said, it sounds like the people who would be most interested in tweaking the code would be your customers. They wouldn't have any reason to resell the product (thus no competition for you), but they do have an interest in seeing it improved. If you restrict your source release to them, you could probably reap some of the benefits of open source development without facing any of the potential pitfalls.
Of course, someone could create a good GPL-alternative and run you out of business. But it would have to actually be a better product, and it's pretty unlikely at this point that anyone could muster the popular support to complete a project with such a narrow audience.
As an employee of one of the companies that attended I guess I have an interesting perspective on this, especially with my rather strong advocacy of Linux and Open source in general within my organization. I am not a spokesdroid for my employer, I am here of my own accord and desire, on my own time, and on my own linux machine. And please pardon my spelling and grammar, I dont have a web-ified ispell :-)
I hope that people read past the title, and into this message, we will see if there is a response...
Ok, here is the main idea of this: The OSS model is specifically designed to maximize quality ("all bugs are shallow with many eyes" ESR), and it does this for the collective good of the community. That is, the function of this model is to generally make peoples lives easier, as bugs will be more transparent, easier to spot and fix. Or taking a step back, and slightly restating it... what is important is the community of users and coders, and their ability to get their work done with as little hinderence as possible. This is a great idea, and lo and behold it seems to be working. What matters in the end is not the success or failure of a single user/coder, but generally the stability of the community, and how a particular change may affect not just one or two users, but everyone. The needs of the community are placed ahead of the needs of one coder/user. This is a sort of social communitism (not communism, but a community focus where one has to look beyond themselves).
Unfortunately, this tends to clash with the mindset of the commercial folks (suits as we are called). In the commercial world, what matters in the end is profit. The tools to make a profit involve intellectual property, differentiation, and demand generation. By its nature, it is not designed to be cooperative, but competitive. While some lambast anyone in a "suit", it is important not to be too antagonistic of the other "side", after all, we are trying to grow the community.
So, here we have two different worlds, one with a sense of significant community and mutual betterment, and another community of competitors, used to differentiation and need-to-know type of scenarios. Can they get along? Should they?
In my opinion (not my companies, they dont tell me, and I have to read about their opinion in Yahoo press releases) there is significant benefit to growing the OSS model within an organization. For one, it can strengthen ties tremendously with the community (which will help the company sell future products). Secondly, with many eyes... better products emerge. Just ask netscape. There are other reasons as well, and I would like to see a continuation of this discussion.
So my point (finally he makes one!) is that maybe the community can help the companies develop the internal OSS model that needs to be in place for this to evolve. I am hoping that the community at large feels that the companies can bring value to this process, and will help the process develop. Remember, that the companies need to make money in the end, so part of this process is to help put out a reasonable business model (eek... business school words!) that works with OSS. Once again, we can turn to Netscape, but they are not necessarily the only model. Cygnus, and many others are quite successful. Once again, we need to appeal to the many eyes (or in this case, many brains) to think this one out.
Overall, the report was interesting, and I hope we see more such meetings.
Big businesses are only in it for the cash. They see how happy the whole Linux community is and they view it as a way to gain attention and profit.
Open source is not just about trust either. It's about seeing what us as humans and hackers can accomplish. We have a passion for computers and we want to get the technology out as fast as possible and then worry about the bugs.
Obviously in this day and age we all worry about the money. But at least in the open source community the technology comes first. Big businesses can't understand this, and they never will. Their soul purpose in life is to generate more revenue than the next corp.
If open source becomes a main stream thing, big businesses will eventually panic because other businesses will come out with even more ideas that they claim originally belonged to them.
As unfortunate as it may be, the GPL and big businesses will never mix.
TeeN GeeK
It's simple, really. You build it, you own it. If I design, build and market a Widget, am I expected to give up my ownership of that design so that everyone else can build there own? No, that would be insane. It's mine! Why do we look at data as somehow different?
For all of it's flaws, I believe in capitalism. I think you Open Source guys are a little to idealistic. I'd like to here your ideas on how this new society will work cause I don't see how your free, love & peace ideas will work as a real world solution.
I think you Open Source guys are a little to idealistic. I'd like to here your ideas on how this new "libertarian" society will work cause I don't see how your free, love & peace ideas will work as a real world solution.
I have ideals or else I wouldn't be part of this thread.
I'm all for new ways of doing things! Creating, building and "contributing" is the most important thing in my life. I want the world to be a better place just as much as you do.
I think we all to often blame the "system" or the "money" or the "drugs".....our problems lye in how people choose to use these things and our attitudes toward them. People are greedy, not money. I feel our solutions are in educating others to be more compassionate. And to also not make unfounded judgements about others:
>>>>People like you consume, w/o giving back.
We need to have some sort of compensation for the things we make and give to others. I'll ask my question again, In this new world you talk about, where people make things that they don't own and thus can't sell, how are people supposed to feed and shelter themselves?
Once again some one has replied to me and managed to not answer my question. I'm not part of this thread to simply argue. For the millionth time, will somebody tell me how can a very large group of people live and work together without owning property or getting compensation for there goods?
I want real world examples.
Amen, brother. I am in exactly the same bind.
As a developer, I find it ethically appealing to work for free and donate my source code to the world. But I rely on its intrinsic value to survive. I write code. People buy it. I get a check. I buy food. Life is OK.
In one quarter, I will graduate with a Computer Science degree. The schooling wasn't free (student loans - ack!). The books weren't free. My computer at home wasn't free either. And I will spend a lot of time and effort to continually learn this trade. It is stimulating and enjoyable and I love it. The knowledge isn't secret or arcane; anyone could buy a book and learn to code. But I get paid to apply my skills to problems and to think of new ways to solve old ones. This is my passion. It's not about money. I chose this profession because it is what I like to do. And, fortuitously, there is a market for my skills.
Music CDs are copyrighted to protect the underlying IP. Anyone might transcribe, sample, or adapt recorded music. It is protected because people buy CDs, and there is value in the music on them. If everything winds up on MP3 and is free for the taking, how will musicians survive?
What about other artists or authors? If their IP is free for the taking, how do they support themselves?
The concept of open source and GPL is wonderful and I see great hope in it. But as much as I would love to live communally, share without reservation, and contribute my code to the common good of all humanity, it boils down to two things:
(1) I like to eat
(2) I like to live indoors
If I give my code away as an act of nobility, and donate my consulting services (since apparently this constitutes parasitism), then I hope you won't mind me sleeping on your couch and raiding your fridge. After all, we're sharing, right?
If you can convince enough people to form a networked barter community, count me in.
I will gladly trade my skills for those of a doctor, a dentist, a farmer, and a landlord. I don't even like keeping track of cash. Unfortunately, the rest of society still requires money, and until the GPL concept extends beyond software source code, this is a dream at best.
JGH Code Weasel
I understand that you can have that stick removed from your ass on an out-patient basis these days...
Your friendly neighborhood wolfman
The 'everyone wants to be Yahoo' comment brought me to enlightenment. It was a very cool observation, reminds me of the limelight circulating around open source right now, and how it can get into the heads of some...
whatcha need ya have to borrow...
d
...