"No I'm not. Thetoadwarrior made that explicit claim, I addressed it and said it was bogus."
well, you are wrong again.
DRM wasn't just created because the companies wanted to control you. Why would they make things more difficult for the end-user with copy protection if they didn't have to?
"How do you conclude that it's devalued? The value of a game depends upon the perceived quality of the entertainment it provides"
When it comes down to it, currency is just a piece of paper with ink on it. It has a perceived value. If people think it's worthless, it's worthless. Just like software.
The value of a game (the value we are talking about here) is how much money somebody is willing to pay for the game. As it becomes more readily available online for free (through torrents, google, etc.), this value approaches 0 (because more and more people know that they can get it for free and think that it's not worth anything).
It will never be exactly 0, because some people will not know about the free methods for getting the game, and purchase it legitimately (some people will also pay..even though they got a free version, but this is a very small percentage).
The entertainment value is always the same, because if it wasn't entertaining, people wouldn't be trying to download it in the first place.
"With that attitude you might as well blame the woman who is raped for being too sexy. It isn't like game manufacturers lack free will, their actions are their responsibility."
You are mixing up the victims here. The company is the victim, not the people pirating. DRM is a means of protecting against piracy (IE: so the companies profits don't get raped).
DRM is a direct result of the vast increase in copyright infringement on the Internet. Eventually, companies will start moving everything on a server.. and there won't be any software to take.
Companies like turbotax and Adobe (they have a new online version of photoshop) are already testing out the waters with this concept.
"It seems to me you drastically underestimate the consequences of having one's identity stolen. When this happens then, no, you do/not/ have it yourself any more because you will find that when you try to use it, it doesn't actually work."
Your identity will work, you just might owe lots of money or have trouble getting a loan.
"This is in stark contrast to copyright infringement, which a publisher doesn't at all notice is happening until they spend tremendous resources trying to measure it."
They might notice when they see a dramatic decrease in sales for a month and wonder why. I have worked with a few small software companies and have seen the direct effects of piracy (and the direct increase in sales after releasing patches). Big companies like Adobe and Microsoft can afford the loss..it can put a small company out of business.
Another issue with piracy is search engine traffic. If a pirated site gets better keywords than you in the search engines, people will more than likely download the free one before purchasing your legitimate version (a direct loss in sales).
"It does since there is now one additional promoter of the game. Of all the people who learn of it from their pirating friends, some percentage is actually going to buy it and this/does/, obviously, directly benefit the publisher. Whether this percentage is 1% or 90% or somewhere in between is open to conjecture, of course, but since the publisher has no cost associated with pirates making copies of the game the percentage is pure profit."
It's closer to counterfeiting currency than it is stealing physical property. Think about what happens when fake currency is injected into an economy (inflation..or..the devaluation of the said currency).
This is exactly what happens to software that is pirated. It's devalued...which is worse than stealing. At least with stealing, there is only a loss of that individual item.
We don't know how many more sales a software company would have had if not for piracy.
"Technology has made reproducing digital information cost almost nothing, yet we get to pay the same price for music as when they cost a lot more to reproduce."
You lose on two counts.
1) it's "getting raped", not "getting rapped".
2) Technology may have made reproducing digital information cost nothing, but the cost of producing it is still the same (if not more). This is what you are purchasing.
Reproduction was never a really high cost (CDS, cassettes, records, all pretty cheap compared to the production cost).
So, stop using it as an excuse to download stuff for free, it just makes you look foolish.
"Min Wage isnt the problem, nor are Unions. This country existed fine with those things for some time, and they only became a problem when businesses were allowed to place their wages against the slave wages of overseas workers."
The unions aren't the problem? They are the reason companies want to go overseas in the first place. Years ago, unions were a good idea. Now, the organization that is designed to protect the average worker is nothing but a criminal organization used to inflate wages and extort large companies out of money.
"Yes. If you buy 1 computer file, it is the same as buying 2 identical computer files. With computer files, there are two relevant quantities: none (don't have a copy), and one (have a copy). If you have more than one copy, it is no more valuable than having one copy."
to you, no. You can copy it 400 times on your own computer and it is fine. Once you start copying the files to other people, there is a problem with your logic. Each person that gets a copy is also getting value from it..and the original author should be compensated.
"A corollary of this is that computer-copyable creative works are only worth as much as the first copy. I.e. they should be (and will be, and mostly already are) funded by commission, performance, micropayments, or similar means, rather than expecting to make a profit from each copy."
The first copy (the original) is many times worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (an app like photoshop is worth millions). So, companies can either sell it to one person for the full amount or charge a small fee for copies.
"If you are an aspiring musician who wants to make money from CD sales, grow out of it. You should find a patron, charge for performances, or flip burgers---that's reality. Micropayments also work if they (1) guarantee that you get a good copy of what you want, and/or (2) allow people to be micropatrons, to fund the musicians they like."
micropayments work against human nature, so they will fail. If people are not forced to pay for something, most will not pay. This is why almost all charities are hurting for money.
You can share all the music you want. However, don't whine and complain when companies start putting money into DRM like schemes. It's only going to make it more difficult for the consumer.
You also shouldn't complain if your job gets outsourced to India or any other country. After all, under your logic, I could say that it's an outdated business model to hire over-paid americans.
"This probably all has to do with being under paid in an industry that makes ass loads of cash for the few at the top, and hardly any at the bottom."
The few at the top are the ones risking all of their money. The people at the bottom only need to come in, do their job, and collect a check..even if the movie is un-successful.
It also has to do with supply/demand. If everyone can do your job, it's not worth much in terms of compensation.
"And its still their job to find out how to do that. Back in the 50s, they were able to sell copies of stuff, since copying was hard. In 2009, neither copying nor distribution is hard any more, so people make their copies themselves and distribute them. If the artist completely used to rely on selling copies to make a living, he now has to adapt. IF he refuses to, he'll have to go flip burgers."
so don't complain when companies/artists do figure out how to make a profit by creating DRM like services that make it difficult for you to share it or you have less quality music and movies because it is no longer profitable.
Also, if you agree with this, you also agree to people violating the GNU (after all, source code is out there for free, if a person can't protect it, I should be able to sell it or add it to my proprietary app without giving back to the community).
"Since i do the copying and the distribution myself, i dont have to pay."
That's the keyword "copying". The difficult part is creating it, which you don't have the skills to actually do (otherwise, you wouldn't be copying it).
"But I have the luck that its not you laying out our ethics code."
Oh? It's a criminal offense in the US. So more people believe this than you think.
"Since you have to call for physical violence and violent anal rape of anybody who doesnt agree to your ageing ideology, you lose."
Companies will adapt. Eventually, all software will be services. You will no longer be able to download most commercial packages. Look at thinks like turbo-tax.
There is also a new service being tested that will allow users to play games online without ever having to install it (it's all run over the internet and the video is streamed).
People like you drove companies to this point. Enjoy the future you have created.
"A simpler example would be: Every fake made-in-china Rolex imitation watch sold does NOT equal a lost Authentic Rolex watch sale."
No, sorry.
A cheap imitation is just that..a cheap imitation. It doesn't last as long as the original and doesn't cost as much to manufacture (which is why it is cheaper).
On the other hand, a digital copy is exact. No difference in quality from the original.
"How about a financial model of bidding to develop software, functional modules, or related services such as security upgrades and support by 'selling shares'? The developers would specify what they propose to develop or offer and describe how much time and other resources would be involved--and thereby set a value on the project. People who wanted the proposed software would buy shares in the development project, and when they get enough people, then they commit, collect the money, and start doing the work."
It's called selling software licenses. This is essentially how proprietary software gets funded. You are paying small amounts of money together with all other customers to subsidize the overall cost of the app (R&D,development,etc.).
The difference from your financial model is that the people who buy shares are the ones taking the risk. They don't know if the software will actually be completed on time or at all. Plus, how much say do I get as a purchaser? Is there a "stock holder" meeting that allows me to tell you the features I want? If you ever worked on a software project, you would know that getting the opinions of 10 people is difficult..let alone 100 or 1000.
As a software consumer, I would much rather just pay a flat amount for software that I know is finished. Nothing is stopping a company from using this model, but it's just impractical.
"Nonesense. Most s/w companies couldn't survive the first year without some type of revenue. You can't sell licenses without having a product to deploy."
Did you not understand that when I talked about selling licenses..it was to software that has already been developed and ready for sale?
"MOST startups are either two guys living off their parents while they develop that initial product, or they are SMART business people that sell their services to get started. Three of the four startups I have worked for were customized software projects that the founders negotiated rights to the source code (or at least shared ownership with the initial customer). "
You forgot about the third that get bank-loans to finance their ideas. The fourth are people that run a software-only business while working a full-time job (ex: http://www.joelonsoftware.com./
"Notice that EVERY SINGLE product you listed above started as a small open source project not tied to any company."
My point was that you may be able to start out small, but because of the nature of open source, you will need a larger company to survive (one that does not sell software only). I see you couldn't provide an example of a large open source project that was not backed by a large company/entity. I don't think one exists.
"Okay, when you get your startup to the point where you can compare yourself to being at least 1% of these two giants, let's talk about business models."
to see my point, just compare some OSS companies (not ones backed by larger corporations) and ones that sell proprietary software with licenses. OSS companies will always be limited because service and support requires more man-power.
"If you are trying to build a business based on their current models, you have lost me completely."
you mean selling software and charging for the licensing fees? thousands of companies do it every day..successfully. In most companies, money is a factor, but time is even more important. Can software X save the company time? Open source apps usually require lots of time to learn, install, configure, and debug..which equals more time spent. Most business owners, if they could, would rather just pay to get something that works right out of the box.
"MySQL (the company) lost their way from the OSS community. However, the purchase by Sun is likely going to bring them back inline with the initial view of MySQL (the project)."
It's closer to: mysql (the company) couldn't survive on services alone and had to start selling licenses. Now that sun owns mysql (the project), they don't have to sell licenses anymore because they have other, non related sources of income that are subsidizing it.
Even though this is the case, I don't think sun will just suddenly stop selling licenses to mysql. It's guaranteed revenue.
"Then OSS is not for you. Make sure you don't end up competing, because you won't win.
Good luck finding that exponential ROI. And make sure you don't sit idle or choose the wrong direction...you'll be surpassed by "free" before you know it."
no, I won't. It's actually surprisingly easy to compete with open source. Most open source projects (besides very large ones like mysql or apache) are under-funded. They have lots of programmers, willing to work on their free time..but most of these people have day jobs.
Marketing is one of the keys. Just look at OSX as an example. It has become what Linux has wanted to be for 10+ years (and did it in half the time). The funny thing is that it doesn't even have to be better, it just needs to get the right message out to the right people (president-elect Osama is also a good example of this).
The other key to apple's success is the slick interface, which is something you almost never see in any open source application.
"Second, I don't see the point of FOSS helping to move labor overseas. The reason labor moves overseas is because it is cheaper. Period. Not because the product is based on FOSS."
Good software takes time, effort, and skill. If good developers give out all of their work in open source form for free, companies won't need to hire the intelligent engineers. They will only need to find people that are good enough to create addons or additions (and pay them significantly less). Open source developers are putting themselves out of a job.
"Also, it's terribly hard to imagine that contributing to FOSS will affect my job 20-30 years in the future. "
Even right now I can see open source effecting my job. The last two companies could have hired more developers, but didn't because we used open source instead. in 10 years, this will be the case in more situations. Not to mention that younger business owners will be more tech savvy.
"What software are you aware of that was developed in 1978 that is still in heavy demand today?"
In 1978, the open source community was not strong and thriving. We also didn't have the Internet. If you look at any linux distro, most of the core utilities derived from software written in the 1970s. (X-windows started in 1987 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System)
"The whole hardware/software industry is constantly moving forward, perhaps faster now than it would have without FOSS. You'll have to explain how FOSS is eroding future jobs."
FOSS in itself, keeps us using the same software. VNC is a good example. 99% of all remote-control software on the internet for sale is based on VNC. Most developers figure it is easier to use a free, existing solution than spend 6 months+ creating a new protocol.
"Open source allows companies to focus less on s/w development (though good OSS-based companies always remain firmly involved), focus more on fostering a thriving community, and spend the majority of their efforts on the area that the proprietary companies eventually have to focus on (paid services, bundled products, etc...). The OSS companies get there first, are typically more nimble because they aren't stuck wasting resources on keeping licensing revenues high. "
bundled products? You mean proprietary software? Or more software that you are going to give away for free.
also, paid services and support typically take a lot more resources, effort, and capital that most companies starting out simply do not have (which will mean sub-standard quality for the consumer).
Licensing fees usually give the company capital for support and services. Without this available, the only companies that will be able to survive are ones that have the backing capital.
This is probably why all major open source projects are subsidized by large companies with deep pockets (open office=sun,php=zend,mysql=mysql corporation,firefox=mozilla foundation+google). These large corporations don't make their sole income from open source software.
"They have already accepted that such a model is a constantly dwindling one."
It hasn't stopped Adobe or Microsoft. Hell, even Mysql has a licensed version. It's never dwindling if you get a base of users using your software and you continue to charge for major updates..or extensions.
"I don't know about you, but if I had to pay some dude $50 every time I wanted to flush my toilet, I'd be buying my own toilet with free flushes pretty damn fast. And, at the risk of stretching the analogy, I think people are tired of putting up with Microsoft's - or any other large company's - shit."
That's a very poor analogy. Most software isn't based on a service (unless it's well..a service) and you only have to pay for it once. If you put it on another computer (IE: putting a toilet in another bathroom in your house), you may have to pay for it again.
"Perhaps you're used to writing operating systems for a living. Well, operating systems are now valuable enough that people are willing to spend effort to make them free - CEOs realized, hey, I *could* spend $100,000 on licenses of an operating system. Or, I could spend the equivalent amount of money by taking an existing operating system and improving it for me . . . and for all future users"
Do you actually think ANY CEO thinks this way? The bottom line is that companies look at how much things are going to cost them. In terms of time or money.
oh, and btw, Most programmers make over $60,000 per year..so it's not going to be that much in savings. Many businesses would much rather pay $100,000 and have Microsoft employ hundreds of programmers to develop updates/patches than a few in-house, which will cost more in the long run.
"Yes, but then you won't be building a community because you've already decided that the s/w you make "doesn't need to be fantastic".
No organization with that mindset is going to build a thriving OSS community."
The goal of a business is to make money, not create "a thriving OSS community". A large community can help, but it many cases it just works against you as a company. This is because many of the same people that are using your product have the ability to fork it and compete with you.
OSS communities also have a history of containing people that not only will not pay for your software, but are against paying for software in general. Strike #2.
"Once the s/w gets a footprint with the costumer, they recognize the value of it and now want customizations and/or support because the s/w has VALUE only after they've played with it."
Support and custom jobs are a nightmare. I would much rather sell licenses to a proprietary application than become a glorified freelancer. This is why OSS businessmen have a free, open source version, and an enterprise version. They use the free version as a sort of a freeware/trial for the large, enterprise version.
"For the rare exceptions, software is a commodity differentiated only by cost."
Not really. Software takes skill, knowledge, and creativity. If you look into any software market, you will see vast differences in design and function of the various competing products.
Open source will make software a commodity...only differentiated by the support costs.
"All the talk out there regarding the "viral" nature of GPL code has confused a lot of otherwise very smart people. What happens is that they miss the dividing line between "the development" and "the use" of the programs."
I think it is actually the lawsuits that "confuse" smart people. No business wants to be forced to give out any source or get a gnu compliance officer.
If you want anyone to blame for this confusion, blame Richard Stallman for spreading GNU based software attached to the word "free", when it clearly is not.
"It just proves the old saying the stupidity and hydrogen are the universal elements of the universe."
Just because someone does not have your beliefs, does not make them any less intelligent than you. See: elitism.
"And, professional, I'd run from a client like that. They strike me as paranoid enough to end up suing for a trivial reason down the road or cherry-pick advice in a manner that ensures failure of any project you would engage in for them."
Gnu software can be a legal nightmare. Why on earth would I want to risk it?
"Wow... just when I begin to think that open source may be making some true inroads in enterprise culture, someone who still doesn't even understand that you can make money off open source software gets modded "Insightful"..."
You can make money from open source (and I mean GNU licensed software), but it's many more times difficult than selling proprietary apps. This is because you have to focus on support, not licensing fees.
I know full well what open source and the GNU license entails and I will not use anything under these types of licenses in my commercial work (I make an exception for the truly free, BSD license).
"I do not doubt your report. I see the point that you are making. It is a valid one. While this does have the potential to weaken the long-term sustainability of PDF, it does not hinder my short-term ability to explode the shit out of the GPP's "Word is used cause people KNOW that EVERYONE [1] can read it" tripe.;)"
Look at the stats of desktop computers on the Internet.
Windows - 90% mac - 9% linux/other - 1%
This is why microsoft products are still used.
When mac and linux have a larger percentage of the market, you might actually have an argument. But until then, if you are using software that is not in the majority, and your platform is not supported..you are out of luck.
"[2] Yes. I'm being just as disingenuous as the GPP here. *hands everyone on slashdot a cookie* : D"
Your "argument" (if you can call that mess of a comment an actual argument) makes no sense.
In fact, I doesn't really matter to me because the majority of companies and governments in the world cater to me, the majoity:-)
"grins* You've heard of Adobe's PDF, yes? You also know that Adobe -and others- provides free (as in beer) software to read PDF, yes? So, one can say that 100% of people will be able to open PDF documents.
Argument... exploded!"
Yes, they will. You haven't won or "explode" my argument.
Just fucking download the free adobe software to read it. It's not that difficult.
"People bring up DOS because it is what gave Microsoft the distribution platform and cash to ship Windows, itself a really bad clone of MacOS. As for Windows revolutionizing the desktop computer industry...huh? Xerox and Apple handled that over a decade earlier"
okay, then why didn't Xerox or Apple get the success that Microsoft had a decade earlier? It doesn't matter if they got the distribution channel. There was major skill and talent involved in creating windows (that neither Xerox or Apple possessed).
"The contract did not require foresight. It was dumb luck."
dumb luck was the guy that invented the pet rock.
IBM was in the same deal. If it was only dumb luck..why did they even sign the contract with Microsoft? Since no talent was involved, all of the executives should have known that it was going to make Microsoft into a billion dollar company. There were probably hundreds of IBM employees that were involved in the entire deal. Surely, one of them could have stopped it from going through.
"I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic other than as flamebait. I am unphased because I don't use an open source desktop."
It's called the truth.
"Such applies to every industry, which was my point about Microsoft."
I think the problem with your reasoning is that it not only prevents you from succeeding, but when somebody else actually does succeed..you discount as nothing more than circumstance, when in reality that can't be further from the truth.
If you want to live your life believing that success is obtained through dumb luck, that's okay. I will continue to make money and be successful with my talent and knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
"No I'm not. Thetoadwarrior made that explicit claim, I addressed it and said it was bogus."
well, you are wrong again.
DRM wasn't just created because the companies wanted to control you. Why would they make things more difficult for the end-user with copy protection if they didn't have to?
"How do you conclude that it's devalued? The value of a game depends upon the perceived quality of the entertainment it provides"
When it comes down to it, currency is just a piece of paper with ink on it. It has a perceived value. If people think it's worthless, it's worthless. Just like software.
The value of a game (the value we are talking about here) is how much money somebody is willing to pay for the game. As it becomes more readily available online for free (through torrents, google, etc.), this value approaches 0 (because more and more people know that they can get it for free and think that it's not worth anything).
It will never be exactly 0, because some people will not know about the free methods for getting the game, and purchase it legitimately (some people will also pay..even though they got a free version, but this is a very small percentage).
The entertainment value is always the same, because if it wasn't entertaining, people wouldn't be trying to download it in the first place.
"With that attitude you might as well blame the woman who is raped for being too sexy. It isn't like game manufacturers lack free will, their actions are their responsibility."
You are mixing up the victims here. The company is the victim, not the people pirating. DRM is a means of protecting against piracy (IE: so the companies profits don't get raped).
DRM is a direct result of the vast increase in copyright infringement on the Internet. Eventually, companies will start moving everything on a server.. and there won't be any software to take.
Companies like turbotax and Adobe (they have a new online version of photoshop) are already testing out the waters with this concept.
I suppose you can always play open source games.
"It seems to me you drastically underestimate the consequences of having one's identity stolen. When this happens then, no, you do /not/ have it yourself any more because you will find that when you try to use it, it doesn't actually work."
Your identity will work, you just might owe lots of money or have trouble getting a loan.
"This is in stark contrast to copyright infringement, which a publisher doesn't at all notice is happening until they spend tremendous resources trying to measure it."
They might notice when they see a dramatic decrease in sales for a month and wonder why. I have worked with a few small software companies and have seen the direct effects of piracy (and the direct increase in sales after releasing patches). Big companies like Adobe and Microsoft can afford the loss..it can put a small company out of business.
Another issue with piracy is search engine traffic. If a pirated site gets better keywords than you in the search engines, people will more than likely download the free one before purchasing your legitimate version (a direct loss in sales).
"It does since there is now one additional promoter of the game. Of all the people who learn of it from their pirating friends, some percentage is actually going to buy it and this /does/, obviously, directly benefit the publisher. Whether this percentage is 1% or 90% or somewhere in between is open to conjecture, of course, but since the publisher has no cost associated with pirates making copies of the game the percentage is pure profit."
It's closer to counterfeiting currency than it is stealing physical property. Think about what happens when fake currency is injected into an economy (inflation..or..the devaluation of the said currency).
This is exactly what happens to software that is pirated. It's devalued...which is worse than stealing. At least with stealing, there is only a loss of that individual item.
We don't know how many more sales a software company would have had if not for piracy.
"Technology has made reproducing digital information cost almost nothing, yet we get to pay the same price for music as when they cost a lot more to reproduce."
You lose on two counts.
1) it's "getting raped", not "getting rapped".
2) Technology may have made reproducing digital information cost nothing, but the cost of producing it is still the same (if not more). This is what you are purchasing.
Reproduction was never a really high cost (CDS, cassettes, records, all pretty cheap compared to the production cost).
So, stop using it as an excuse to download stuff for free, it just makes you look foolish.
"Min Wage isnt the problem, nor are Unions. This country existed fine with those things for some time, and they only became a problem when businesses were allowed to place their wages against the slave wages of overseas workers."
The unions aren't the problem? They are the reason companies want to go overseas in the first place. Years ago, unions were a good idea. Now, the organization that is designed to protect the average worker is nothing but a criminal organization used to inflate wages and extort large companies out of money.
"Yes. If you buy 1 computer file, it is the same as buying 2 identical computer files. With computer files, there are two relevant quantities: none (don't have a copy), and one (have a copy). If you have more than one copy, it is no more valuable than having one copy."
to you, no. You can copy it 400 times on your own computer and it is fine. Once you start copying the files to other people, there is a problem with your logic. Each person that gets a copy is also getting value from it..and the original author should be compensated.
"A corollary of this is that computer-copyable creative works are only worth as much as the first copy. I.e. they should be (and will be, and mostly already are) funded by commission, performance, micropayments, or similar means, rather than expecting to make a profit from each copy."
The first copy (the original) is many times worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (an app like photoshop is worth millions). So, companies can either sell it to one person for the full amount or charge a small fee for copies.
"If you are an aspiring musician who wants to make money from CD sales, grow out of it. You should find a patron, charge for performances, or flip burgers---that's reality. Micropayments also work if they (1) guarantee that you get a good copy of what you want, and/or (2) allow people to be micropatrons, to fund the musicians they like."
micropayments work against human nature, so they will fail. If people are not forced to pay for something, most will not pay. This is why almost all charities are hurting for money.
You can share all the music you want. However, don't whine and complain when companies start putting money into DRM like schemes. It's only going to make it more difficult for the consumer.
You also shouldn't complain if your job gets outsourced to India or any other country. After all, under your logic, I could say that it's an outdated business model to hire over-paid americans.
"This probably all has to do with being under paid in an industry that makes ass loads of cash for the few at the top, and hardly any at the bottom."
The few at the top are the ones risking all of their money. The people at the bottom only need to come in, do their job, and collect a check..even if the movie is un-successful.
It also has to do with supply/demand. If everyone can do your job, it's not worth much in terms of compensation.
"And its still their job to find out how to do that. Back in the 50s, they were able to sell copies of stuff, since copying was hard. In 2009, neither copying nor distribution is hard any more, so people make their copies themselves and distribute them. If the artist completely used to rely on selling copies to make a living, he now has to adapt. IF he refuses to, he'll have to go flip burgers."
so don't complain when companies/artists do figure out how to make a profit by creating DRM like services that make it difficult for you to share it or you have less quality music and movies because it is no longer profitable.
Also, if you agree with this, you also agree to people violating the GNU (after all, source code is out there for free, if a person can't protect it, I should be able to sell it or add it to my proprietary app without giving back to the community).
"Since i do the copying and the distribution myself, i dont have to pay."
That's the keyword "copying". The difficult part is creating it, which you don't have the skills to actually do (otherwise, you wouldn't be copying it).
"But I have the luck that its not you laying out our ethics code."
Oh? It's a criminal offense in the US. So more people believe this than you think.
"Since you have to call for physical violence and violent anal rape of anybody who doesnt agree to your ageing ideology, you lose."
Companies will adapt. Eventually, all software will be services. You will no longer be able to download most commercial packages. Look at thinks like turbo-tax.
There is also a new service being tested that will allow users to play games online without ever having to install it (it's all run over the internet and the video is streamed).
People like you drove companies to this point. Enjoy the future you have created.
"A simpler example would be:
Every fake made-in-china Rolex imitation watch sold does NOT equal a lost Authentic Rolex watch sale."
No, sorry.
A cheap imitation is just that..a cheap imitation. It doesn't last as long as the original and doesn't cost as much to manufacture (which is why it is cheaper).
On the other hand, a digital copy is exact. No difference in quality from the original.
Which is why it results in a loss in sales.
"How about a financial model of bidding to develop software, functional modules, or related services such as security upgrades and support by 'selling shares'? The developers would specify what they propose to develop or offer and describe how much time and other resources would be involved--and thereby set a value on the project. People who wanted the proposed software would buy shares in the development project, and when they get enough people, then they commit, collect the money, and start doing the work."
It's called selling software licenses. This is essentially how proprietary software gets funded. You are paying small amounts of money together with all other customers to subsidize the overall cost of the app (R&D,development,etc.).
The difference from your financial model is that the people who buy shares are the ones taking the risk. They don't know if the software will actually be completed on time or at all. Plus, how much say do I get as a purchaser? Is there a "stock holder" meeting that allows me to tell you the features I want? If you ever worked on a software project, you would know that getting the opinions of 10 people is difficult..let alone 100 or 1000.
As a software consumer, I would much rather just pay a flat amount for software that I know is finished. Nothing is stopping a company from using this model, but it's just impractical.
"Just remember: When someone more intelligent or knowledgeable than you are, labeling them an elitist doesn't change anything."
hayuck hayuck, that was hilarious. I'm glad you feel the need to prove your "intelligence" through a slashdot post.
"Nonesense. Most s/w companies couldn't survive the first year without some type of revenue. You can't sell licenses without having a product to deploy."
Did you not understand that when I talked about selling licenses..it was to software that has already been developed and ready for sale?
"MOST startups are either two guys living off their parents while they develop that initial product, or they are SMART business people that sell their services to get started. Three of the four startups I have worked for were customized software projects that the founders negotiated rights to the source code (or at least shared ownership with the initial customer). "
You forgot about the third that get bank-loans to finance their ideas. The fourth are people that run a software-only business while working a full-time job (ex: http://www.joelonsoftware.com./
"Notice that EVERY SINGLE product you listed above started as a small open source project not tied to any company."
My point was that you may be able to start out small, but because of the nature of open source, you will need a larger company to survive (one that does not sell software only). I see you couldn't provide an example of a large open source project that was not backed by a large company/entity. I don't think one exists.
"Okay, when you get your startup to the point where you can compare yourself to being at least 1% of these two giants, let's talk about business models."
to see my point, just compare some OSS companies (not ones backed by larger corporations) and ones that sell proprietary software with licenses. OSS companies will always be limited because service and support requires more man-power.
"If you are trying to build a business based on their current models, you have lost me completely."
you mean selling software and charging for the licensing fees? thousands of companies do it every day..successfully. In most companies, money is a factor, but time is even more important. Can software X save the company time? Open source apps usually require lots of time to learn, install, configure, and debug..which equals more time spent. Most business owners, if they could, would rather just pay to get something that works right out of the box.
"MySQL (the company) lost their way from the OSS community. However, the purchase by Sun is likely going to bring them back inline with the initial view of MySQL (the project)."
It's closer to: mysql (the company) couldn't survive on services alone and had to start selling licenses. Now that sun owns mysql (the project), they don't have to sell licenses anymore because they have other, non related sources of income that are subsidizing it.
Even though this is the case, I don't think sun will just suddenly stop selling licenses to mysql. It's guaranteed revenue.
"Then OSS is not for you. Make sure you don't end up competing, because you won't win.
Good luck finding that exponential ROI. And make sure you don't sit idle or choose the wrong direction...you'll be surpassed by "free" before you know it."
no, I won't. It's actually surprisingly easy to compete with open source. Most open source projects (besides very large ones like mysql or apache) are under-funded. They have lots of programmers, willing to work on their free time..but most of these people have day jobs.
Marketing is one of the keys. Just look at OSX as an example. It has become what Linux has wanted to be for 10+ years (and did it in half the time). The funny thing is that it doesn't even have to be better, it just needs to get the right message out to the right people (president-elect Osama is also a good example of this).
The other key to apple's success is the slick interface, which is something you almost never see in any open source application.
"Second, I don't see the point of FOSS helping to move labor overseas. The reason labor moves overseas is because it is cheaper. Period. Not because the product is based on FOSS."
Good software takes time, effort, and skill. If good developers give out all of their work in open source form for free, companies won't need to hire the intelligent engineers. They will only need to find people that are good enough to create addons or additions (and pay them significantly less). Open source developers are putting themselves out of a job.
"Also, it's terribly hard to imagine that contributing to FOSS will affect my job 20-30 years in the future. "
Even right now I can see open source effecting my job. The last two companies could have hired more developers, but didn't because we used open source instead. in 10 years, this will be the case in more situations. Not to mention that younger business owners will be more tech savvy.
"What software are you aware of that was developed in 1978 that is still in heavy demand today?"
In 1978, the open source community was not strong and thriving. We also didn't have the Internet. If you look at any linux distro, most of the core utilities derived from software written in the 1970s. (X-windows started in 1987 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System)
"The whole hardware/software industry is constantly moving forward, perhaps faster now than it would have without FOSS. You'll have to explain how FOSS is eroding future jobs."
FOSS in itself, keeps us using the same software. VNC is a good example. 99% of all remote-control software on the internet for sale is based on VNC. Most developers figure it is easier to use a free, existing solution than spend 6 months+ creating a new protocol.
"Open source allows companies to focus less on s/w development (though good OSS-based companies always remain firmly involved), focus more on fostering a thriving community, and spend the majority of their efforts on the area that the proprietary companies eventually have to focus on (paid services, bundled products, etc...). The OSS companies get there first, are typically more nimble because they aren't stuck wasting resources on keeping licensing revenues high. "
bundled products? You mean proprietary software? Or more software that you are going to give away for free.
also, paid services and support typically take a lot more resources, effort, and capital that most companies starting out simply do not have (which will mean sub-standard quality for the consumer).
Licensing fees usually give the company capital for support and services. Without this available, the only companies that will be able to survive are ones that have the backing capital.
This is probably why all major open source projects are subsidized by large companies with deep pockets (open office=sun,php=zend,mysql=mysql corporation,firefox=mozilla foundation+google). These large corporations don't make their sole income from open source software.
"They have already accepted that such a model is a constantly dwindling one."
It hasn't stopped Adobe or Microsoft. Hell, even Mysql has a licensed version. It's never dwindling if you get a base of users using your software and you continue to charge for major updates..or extensions.
"I don't know about you, but if I had to pay some dude $50 every time I wanted to flush my toilet, I'd be buying my own toilet with free flushes pretty damn fast. And, at the risk of stretching the analogy, I think people are tired of putting up with Microsoft's - or any other large company's - shit."
That's a very poor analogy. Most software isn't based on a service (unless it's well..a service) and you only have to pay for it once. If you put it on another computer (IE: putting a toilet in another bathroom in your house), you may have to pay for it again.
"Perhaps you're used to writing operating systems for a living. Well, operating systems are now valuable enough that people are willing to spend effort to make them free - CEOs realized, hey, I *could* spend $100,000 on licenses of an operating system. Or, I could spend the equivalent amount of money by taking an existing operating system and improving it for me . . . and for all future users"
Do you actually think ANY CEO thinks this way? The bottom line is that companies look at how much things are going to cost them. In terms of time or money.
oh, and btw, Most programmers make over $60,000 per year..so it's not going to be that much in savings. Many businesses would much rather pay $100,000 and have Microsoft employ hundreds of programmers to develop updates/patches than a few in-house, which will cost more in the long run.
"Yes, but then you won't be building a community because you've already decided that the s/w you make "doesn't need to be fantastic".
No organization with that mindset is going to build a thriving OSS community."
The goal of a business is to make money, not create "a thriving OSS community". A large community can help, but it many cases it just works against you as a company. This is because many of the same people that are using your product have the ability to fork it and compete with you.
OSS communities also have a history of containing people that not only will not pay for your software, but are against paying for software in general. Strike #2.
"Once the s/w gets a footprint with the costumer, they recognize the value of it and now want customizations and/or support because the s/w has VALUE only after they've played with it."
Support and custom jobs are a nightmare. I would much rather sell licenses to a proprietary application than become a glorified freelancer. This is why OSS businessmen have a free, open source version, and an enterprise version. They use the free version as a sort of a freeware/trial for the large, enterprise version.
"For the rare exceptions, software is a commodity differentiated only by cost."
Not really. Software takes skill, knowledge, and creativity. If you look into any software market, you will see vast differences in design and function of the various competing products.
Open source will make software a commodity...only differentiated by the support costs.
"All the talk out there regarding the "viral" nature of GPL code has confused a lot of otherwise very smart people. What happens is that they miss the dividing line between "the development" and "the use" of the programs."
I think it is actually the lawsuits that "confuse" smart people. No business wants to be forced to give out any source or get a gnu compliance officer.
If you want anyone to blame for this confusion, blame Richard Stallman for spreading GNU based software attached to the word "free", when it clearly is not.
"It just proves the old saying the stupidity and hydrogen are the universal elements of the universe."
Just because someone does not have your beliefs, does not make them any less intelligent than you. See: elitism.
"And, professional, I'd run from a client like that. They strike me as paranoid enough to end up suing for a trivial reason down the road or cherry-pick advice in a manner that ensures failure of any project you would engage in for them."
Gnu software can be a legal nightmare. Why on earth would I want to risk it?
"Wow... just when I begin to think that open source may be making some true inroads in enterprise culture, someone who still doesn't even understand that you can make money off open source software gets modded "Insightful"..."
You can make money from open source (and I mean GNU licensed software), but it's many more times difficult than selling proprietary apps. This is because you have to focus on support, not licensing fees.
I know full well what open source and the GNU license entails and I will not use anything under these types of licenses in my commercial work (I make an exception for the truly free, BSD license).
"I do not doubt your report. I see the point that you are making. It is a valid one. ;)"
While this does have the potential to weaken the long-term sustainability of PDF, it does not hinder my short-term ability to explode the shit out of the GPP's "Word is used cause people KNOW that EVERYONE [1] can read it" tripe.
Look at the stats of desktop computers on the Internet.
Windows - 90% mac - 9% linux/other - 1%
This is why microsoft products are still used.
When mac and linux have a larger percentage of the market, you might actually have an argument. But until then, if you are using software that is not in the majority, and your platform is not supported..you are out of luck.
"[2] Yes. I'm being just as disingenuous as the GPP here. *hands everyone on slashdot a cookie* : D"
Your "argument" (if you can call that mess of a comment an actual argument) makes no sense.
In fact, I doesn't really matter to me because the majority of companies and governments in the world cater to me, the majoity :-)
"grins*
You've heard of Adobe's PDF, yes?
You also know that Adobe -and others- provides free (as in beer) software to read PDF, yes?
So, one can say that 100% of people will be able to open PDF documents.
Argument... exploded!"
Yes, they will. You haven't won or "explode" my argument.
Just fucking download the free adobe software to read it. It's not that difficult.
"People bring up DOS because it is what gave Microsoft the distribution platform and cash to ship Windows, itself a really bad clone of MacOS. As for Windows revolutionizing the desktop computer industry...huh? Xerox and Apple handled that over a decade earlier"
okay, then why didn't Xerox or Apple get the success that Microsoft had a decade earlier? It doesn't matter if they got the distribution channel. There was major skill and talent involved in creating windows (that neither Xerox or Apple possessed).
"The contract did not require foresight. It was dumb luck."
dumb luck was the guy that invented the pet rock.
IBM was in the same deal. If it was only dumb luck..why did they even sign the contract with Microsoft? Since no talent was involved, all of the executives should have known that it was going to make Microsoft into a billion dollar company. There were probably hundreds of IBM employees that were involved in the entire deal. Surely, one of them could have stopped it from going through.
"I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic other than as flamebait. I am unphased because I don't use an open source desktop."
It's called the truth.
"Such applies to every industry, which was my point about Microsoft."
I think the problem with your reasoning is that it not only prevents you from succeeding, but when somebody else actually does succeed..you discount as nothing more than circumstance, when in reality that can't be further from the truth.
If you want to live your life believing that success is obtained through dumb luck, that's okay. I will continue to make money and be successful with my talent and knowledge.