It is worth pointing out once more that this DOES NOT mean that Linux will get any benefit from this development.
The Sun Community Source License allows you to see the source, but does not allow general free use or redistribution. This is not some picky "Oh it's not GPL, Ah it is not fully Open Source (TM)" point. It just isn't a free use or free redistribution license. It allows for research use, paid-for commercial use, and redistribution only among existing licensees.
The release has technical interest, and I'm happy that Sun have done it for reasons other than to give a false impression of contributing free software, but it's of little use to most of us. It's only of use to Sun platform developers and academics. It may be very good news to Sun's customers using the affected products.
You can't answer that question without looking at your employer and the work.
First, if your employer is some (to you) deserving cause, it seems like perfectly good moral motivation to do the work for less than what you might be able to get doing other work elsewhere. Good examples would be helping the terminally ill, teaching English to poor children in other countries, and Open Source development. To say that these types of work are stupid is very selfish and I shall immediately use my social pressure points to say that I wouldn't like to know you if you said that.
Second, one of the main points of life is to gain interesting and pleasant experiences. It may be cheaper to do this via a job than by trying to earn enough money to afford it. If you are thrilled by flying a plane you may work very hard as a programmer and then by a light aircraft, or you may join the army and become a fighter pilot (moral issues aside). If you doubt that, how about being an astronaut. So then, what is wrong with the idea of taking the less lucrative but more interesting geek job?
Third, people want to feel that they have some sort of impact in life. At least some of us. One avenue to achieve this is through having children (which also does many other things to your life). Another possible source of fulfillment is though work. Artists are motivated largely by the desire to have an emotional impact on the audience, and even bridge builders and aircraft engineers are, I believe, motivated by creating something that other will admire. Programming can be a good vehicle of creativity, so geeks are often motivated by work that allows them to design impressive things. The reason most of us hate Microsoft is that it makes the work landscape unsexy to the point that no software project seems worth doing.
In the end you have to ask yourself what you feel when you get out of bed and go to work each day. Is it "I'd much rather stay here but, hey I'll be able to afford a new car next month" or "I have had a great idea about X that will make the project 3 times more efficient. I must show it to John and Paul today". They are different motives but both valid.
Personally my strategy is to make myself as knowledgeable and wise about my subject as possible, so I can enjoy benefits like relative job security, lax hours, choice tasks, and more free time. I probably earn less than I possibly could that way, but I'm happy and my employer gets good value.
This is a great idea whose time has indeed come. Some posters have argued that this is just like telecommuting or contracting and others decried the notion that programmers will be getting paid, claiming that this is not "free" or "open". More reasonably, some have expressed a worry about what license the projects would be released under.
I believe that Open Source is what makes these schemes possible and different from a simple contracting agency. The understanding that the project is to be released under an open source license affects the dnamics of the sponsors and the motives of the developers, as well as lubricating the entire process.
First, Open Source allows a group of users, who want the software for its use value and not as a product to resell, to come together and pool funds for the development. Sure, there will be free riders, but they only get to sit and watch the scenery go by.
Second, developers like to work on open source projects. The reason I would rather work on an Open Source project is the ethical motive that my source will be free for use by everyone and not hoarded to extract a price, whether I get paid for writing it or not. I do want to earn a comfortable living and welcome this chance to be able to do so while developing Open Source.
Third, the bidding and collaboration arrangements suggested by these sites are made far more practical by an Open Source license because there is no need to keep the project strictly confidential, and because of the very large pool of potentially reusable code.
Thank you Pavlos Papageorgiou pavlos@spamblocker.voxar.com
Slashdot Mirror
It is worth pointing out once more that this DOES NOT mean that Linux will get any benefit from this development.
The Sun Community Source License allows you to see the source, but does not allow general free use or redistribution. This is not some picky "Oh it's not GPL, Ah it is not fully Open Source (TM)" point. It just isn't a free use or free redistribution license. It allows for research use, paid-for commercial use, and redistribution only among existing licensees.
The release has technical interest, and I'm happy that Sun have done it for reasons other than to give a false impression of contributing free software, but it's of little use to most of us. It's only of use to Sun platform developers and academics. It may be very good news to Sun's customers using the affected products.
You can't answer that question without looking at your employer and the work.
First, if your employer is some (to you) deserving cause, it seems like perfectly good moral motivation to do the work for less than what you might be able to get doing other work elsewhere. Good examples would be helping the terminally ill, teaching English to poor children in other countries, and Open Source development. To say that these types of work are stupid is very selfish and I shall immediately use my social pressure points to say that I wouldn't like to know you if you said that.
Second, one of the main points of life is to gain interesting and pleasant experiences. It may be cheaper to do this via a job than by trying to earn enough money to afford it. If you are thrilled by flying a plane you may work very hard as a programmer and then by a light aircraft, or you may join the army and become a fighter pilot (moral issues aside). If you doubt that, how about being an astronaut. So then, what is wrong with the idea of taking the less lucrative but more interesting geek job?
Third, people want to feel that they have some sort of impact in life. At least some of us. One avenue to achieve this is through having children (which also does many other things to your life). Another possible source of fulfillment is though work. Artists are motivated largely by the desire to have an emotional impact on the audience, and even bridge builders and aircraft engineers are, I believe, motivated by creating something that other will admire. Programming can be a good vehicle of creativity, so geeks are often motivated by work that allows them to design impressive things. The reason most of us hate Microsoft is that it makes the work landscape unsexy to the point that no software project seems worth doing.
In the end you have to ask yourself what you feel when you get out of bed and go to work each day. Is it "I'd much rather stay here but, hey I'll be able to afford a new car next month" or "I have had a great idea about X that will make the project 3 times more efficient. I must show it to John and Paul today". They are different motives but both valid.
Personally my strategy is to make myself as knowledgeable and wise about my subject as possible, so I can enjoy benefits like relative job security, lax hours, choice tasks, and more free time. I probably earn less than I possibly could that way, but I'm happy and my employer gets good value.
This is a great idea whose time has indeed come. Some posters have argued that this is just like telecommuting or contracting and others decried the notion that programmers will be getting paid, claiming that this is not "free" or "open". More reasonably, some have expressed a worry about what license the projects would be released under.
I believe that Open Source is what makes these schemes possible and different from a simple contracting agency. The understanding that the project is to be released under an open source license affects the dnamics of the sponsors and the motives of the developers, as well as lubricating the entire process.
First, Open Source allows a group of users, who want the software for its use value and not as a product to resell, to come together and pool funds for the development. Sure, there will be free riders, but they only get to sit and watch the scenery go by.
Second, developers like to work on open source projects. The reason I would rather work on an Open Source project is the ethical motive that my source will be free for use by everyone and not hoarded to extract a price, whether I get paid for writing it or not. I do want to earn a comfortable living and welcome this chance to be able to do so while developing Open Source.
Third, the bidding and collaboration arrangements suggested by these sites are made far more practical by an Open Source license because there is no need to keep the project strictly confidential, and because of the very large pool of potentially reusable code.
Thank you
Pavlos Papageorgiou
pavlos@spamblocker.voxar.com