Slashdot Mirror
TCL Creator Writes Article on Open Source
Zagadka writes "John Ousterhout,
creator of TCL,
has written an article called
Free
Software Needs Profit for
Dr. Dobb's. It discusses
the relationship open source software and commercial
software can have with each
other.
"
Time and time again people post this rant, which as always confuses "commercial" with "proprietary".
There's nothing wrong with putting food on your table, working for money, retiring in a nice home, etc. There are wealthy people in the world who need computer software, and there's nothing intrinsically evil about providing it to them for a fee. However, the proprietary TCL extensions john creates are doomed to be one-trick ponys with no long term care taken by active volunteers, users in the field, administrators, hobbyists or professional system integrators. They will not stabilize and advance with use, they will not have code folded back in from the real world; rather they will (like all proprietary ware) have their bugs and features sorted by visibility and customer contracts, their modification schedules driven purely by the alocation of resources within Scriptics inc.
As a result they will fall behind the times and customers will either have to pay the ransom for promised (not necessarily delivered) features in the next vapour product line, or live with the broken product. A small-time customer will never have their desires addressed and will be unable to seek additional contractors to do the work. Their "hood" is welded shut and there's nothing they can do about it.
The only thing you get with proprietary ware is a big shiny box, a fancy flyer, and a lot of empty promises.
Businesses spring up around open source projects
in the same way that mold grows on my plates when
I leave food in the fridge for too long -- they
(the businesses) see a chance to make money and
jump at it.
Like my unfortunate dishes, the open source
projects can do just fine without the businesses
cropping up. Think of them more as nonlethal (we
hope) parasites.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The next big jump for open source software is when coporations start developing OSS to "scratch their own itch." In the past, a lot of OSS came out of universities and goverment projects, where this kind of idea arises more naturally. In the future, I hope that lots of business look to a problem they have, see that there is some OSS that already does much of what they want to have done, and then extend it to do what they really need done. Of course, the are oblidged to release these modifications.
Once OSS reaches a "critical mass", I think that lots of businesses will be choosing this route of "extending the OSS that is out there." It has a lot of advantages over in-house development because you get a good start for free and you often get bug fixes and other enhancements from other people for free. It also has a lot of advantages over proprietary software because the business has control over their own destiny, and the cost of deploying gobs of workstations is much smaller.
Comercial software is not inherently evil.
Businesses are not inherently evil.
MicroSoft is not inherently evil. (It is irrelevant.)
The Governement is not inherently evil.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
As I see it, there are (at least) two types of open-source companies.
:-)
The first would include companies like Red Hat and LinuxCare. These are companies whose business model does not depend on proprietary software at all; their entire product is open.
The second includes companies like Scriptics and Sendmail. These companies base their business on proprietary extensions to free products - "better" versions of the free stuff.
Of course, no one can object to the first kind of company (unless you believe making money is itself evil). The second kind is a little harder to deal with, because it involves taking the hard work of the community and making money off of it without giving anything back - not in a money sense, but in the sense of giving back their improvements for the community to use.
The real gray area, in this case, involves companies like ActiveState and Cygnus. They sell proprietary software, but as separate add-ons to the free tools, not strictly as enhancements. In addition, like Red Hat, they donate much time and effort into free improvements to the free tools, keeping the proprietary parts of their effort as separate as they can.
As an example, ActiveState distributes and does lots of work on Perl for Win32, and distributes it under Perl's original licenses - free for any use, full source included. They also distribute some add-ons as "free beer" which help integrate Perl better into the Windows environment. Finally, they sell proprietary extensions to Perl: a GUI debugger for Windows and a "mod_perl"-like extension for IIS.
I think I feel better about this method of extending free software for money than the Scriptics/Sendmail way. It isn't as "exploitative"; you're really making your money off your own code, not other people's code.
Is it a coincidence that Scriptics-style companies tend to grow out of projects under a BSD/X license, while ActiveState/Cygnus companies (as well as, obviously, Red Hat-style companies) tend to grow out of GPL projects? Is this more evidence of the superiority of the GPL?
(Also: did you notice which prominent open-source project he didn't mention that doesn't have a company egging on its success? Hint: it's even more successful than all the rest, and it's the software that's feeding you these pages.
The debate in my mind is not whether free software benefits from commercial backing. I think everyone here agrees that commercial support for free software is an inevitable development, and that it's good when businesses write free software.
The actual point of contention is whether we need to have proprietary software companies using free software to further their business. When talking about this point, the argument that "programmers need to eat" doesn't apply: as Red Hat Software shows, a software company can feed programmers without writing any proprietary software at all. The jury is still very much out on the role of proprietary software in the free software world.
By failing to distinguish clearly between commercial and proprietary software, Ousterhout pretty much misses the boat with his article.
I think John is on the right track. There should be no shame in making money using Open Source. As he cited, look at O'Reilly and Sendmail. For another essay along these lines, read Bob Young's contribution to "Open Sources." You know Bob's company - Red Hat. Some little startup in the Carolinas...
But, to put it simply - people have to eat. Some choose to make money their primary motivator, others choose contributing to the greater community. (And some just want to see there names in print!)
The Open Source community is big enough to include those that make money as well as those who aren't driven by profit. Let's not let this issue divide us. If by selling copies of Linux in the local book/computer stores, the more people we'll have using Linux and there's strength in numbers.
Busineses springing from Open Source projects remind me an awful lot of businesses springing from university research projects (and of course TCL has both these origins). The founders always say that this is a positive move for the project and needed for its continued growth, etc. etc., but I sort of get the idea that the real reason is that these companies start is because the project heads want to live in a nicer house and drive a nicer car, and the way to get these things in our society is to start a business. I don't object to people like Ousterhout wanting nice things (they often deserve them), but I *do* wish these people would be more honest about their motives for going commercial.
I think he made a really good point- commercial companies can support and add on to an OSS project. That way it's the best of both worlds- hackers and developers can use it, and end users can enjoy the benefit of the software.
There is one problem, though: the developers of the project are not the ones who see the money. I wish more of the companies who adapt open source could pay the programmers who wrote the core.
Linux: Long live the source code.
Yes, Free Software and commercial ventures are compatible. But he is (also) talking about Free Software combined with proprietary products which aren't compatible.