So you give away the product, and sell the enhancements... is that what you're saying?
But if the enhancements are also open source, you're only going to possibly get paid for the first user who wants the enhancement - because everyone after that gets it free!
Yeah, but even if the GPL forces you to call it "Timmy Ward's Better-n-excel spreadsheet app", MS can still package it and resell it. And, they can sell support for it - something which you as a single person cannot hope to provide.
Yes, but the argument here revolves around 'support' and such. And let's not under-emphasize marketting here.
You're right, in that a good portion of the market would go for the free version. But if I understand correctly, MS could release software tools that work -with- the product, that isn't required to be GPL'd (I could be mistaken here). So my scenario is this - that a small business, small project, or even single developer... basically would get overwhelmed. MS would have something to sell in a box, something they could advertise for... but more importantly, something -they- could sell 'support' and services for, that you could not begin to support at their level.
Basically, it seems to me to be a big opportunity for a company like MS to have a product to sell 'support' for that they didn't write. They could reap millions from this (having the support infrastructure and distribution channels already in place) and you still would see nothing for your work.
I appreciate the informed responses tho, thanks.
True enough; but in this case I'm referring to myself as a single developer (or, say, a small business) and M as a large corporation. Where M can push the software to millions of desktops overnight, I do not have the distribution channels. Sure, I could resell M's additional work, but what's the likelihood that people will buy my work over M's - when M has millions for advertising, distribution methods, servers... see where I'm going here?
The OSS movement that intends to bring down M-icrosoft will instead be raped by it. At least, that's what I forsee. There is little I can see to stop it - like you say, IBM is profiting from it, of course they are. Developers putting work into OSS under IBM are chumps if they don't have agreements to get paid (which apparently you do) for the work.
Still, you; being a part-developer of the products IBM puts out - have no chance whatsoever to compete against IBM with that software (if we for a moment disregard any contractual IP rights that IBM probably has on you). If you were the original designer and IBM decided even to hire you to get the support for your app, they could make millions from -your- app and you might see the big donut for it, and there's nothing to stop that.
Define "serious". I write enterprise waste management and compliance software for the country's largest hazardous waste management company.
WinAMP's an example. But if you think for a moment that the same principle doesn't apply, you're mistaken. User interface design should be as simple and intuitive as winAMP for just about anything - a button for play, a button for stop. Is that metaphor above your head?
"But then when something with the free software doesn't adapt to the situation well, you (the developer) comes around and says "Oh, so you need it to do THAT. I can adapt it to do that, but it will cost you...""
-->Clearly you've never sat in a sales meeting. Clients assume that if you can find the core for free, somewhere out there will be the specific stuff for free.
And besides, once you've written that adaptation, doesn't the GPL declare that -that- adaptation becomes open source too? So in essence, you only get ONE chance to resell your own work. And you think ONE client is going to want to foot that bill? No. Clients buy software at prices that expect that they are not the only one you will sell that to.
No single client will want to spend the $40,000 for an upgrade that you can't even guarantee their competitors won't be able to then download for free. It doesn't make business sense.
You make this sound like Microsoft has never bought and resold software they don't know intimately.
Case in point - SQL Server (one of their core businesses) and this little software called MS-DOS. Ever hear of it?
And are you, dear slashdotter, going to tell me that MS is hurting because of their reputation? If 60B+ personal worth is what you call 'hurting', then I say bring it on.
"Any company should want to hire you, if they are going to provide support for the project you built"
-->Uh, why? Why would a company in Redmond, Wa want to hire a developer in boston, MA, when they've got plenty of developers who can read source & documentation to add to it?
Look, I agree with your point, but that -is- the goal, is it not? Shouldn't our goal be to write software so intuitive that no one needs support for it?
The answer is, of course, yes.
And the closer we get to coding that well, the further we would get from revenue. That's BAD. Real bad.
But again - I'm a developer. I don't want to provide support AND develop, nor does most of the developers out there, and nor are they even capable of it.
THANK YOU for an insightful reply. You've definitely made some interesting points.
I still feel, however, that overall none of the above models ensure that everyone in the chain gets their due. Further, it kills IP when my input into the project is not directly linked to any funding; the original inventors of the project could easily never see any cash for their invention when a company resells support (including feature upgrades) for a product.
If I develop A, I still see there is no protection keeping company M from reselling A and making additional money selling add-ons; all for a product that I created. M owes me no money, nor do the add-ons garner me any royalties.
Buut,.NET is intended to be available cross-platform. That's the whole point. That's why they've standardized it and given projects like Mono the specs for the IL.
You've got perfectly good points, except you're defending the casual guy (who doesn't care to get paid), but missing the professional developer - missing the business reality of there being no real requirement that any programmers get paid.
Perhaps if there was something set up, where people can only see the code if they check some in, and can only get parts of it, and get paid for the amount they work on... but as of yet, there isn't.
Would I pay MySQL to add BLOB support? Let me tell you, I would sooner pay MS because they already have it. But that may not stop me from spending a night to add it to MySQL on my own.
See, I love the concept of open source; I do. I understand people coding for love. But the concern I have is that there is little to nothing stopping, say, MS, from scooping up a project, putting an MS logo on it, boxing it, and selling it in stores - without paying the original developers a dime. And so long as there's a GPL attached, it'd be perfectly legal; and would perfectly piss off everyone involved in OSS.
Am I wrong in thinking that? Is there something to prevent a corporate software grab like that? It's a genuine question.
"And you misunderstand entirely - I said 'I get paid to develop Open Source' not that 'I sell Open Source' - there's a big and subtle difference."
-->There's no difference; You just need to think in a bigger picture - the *I* needs to be swapped with "You and the company that represents your work". At some point in the chain, you are being paid for the sale of work or sale of work resulting from your development. No?
Yes, but while that's fine and well and good, and explainable to other techies, the general populace doesn't get a piece of buggy or obtuse code and say "Well, I suppose I should pay them to patch this!", they say "eff this, this software sucks!"
Seriously, find a job in technical support. I spent 2 years as a tier-two technician for a certain software empire. Users don't want to pay for bug fixes, compatability changes, or useability features after-the-fact. They want that in -this- release, free or otherwise. They will pay for good software off the bat... but rarely will they pay for additions to free software. Think about it - where is anyone making money right now selling upgrades? Microsoft -is-, because they've got customers that understand that they pay for the software, and get free bug support, and have to pay for training. People pay for their next version because they can't get that sort of upgrade anywhere else. But with linux, say... customers can say "Well, screw this; this flavor has xxx but wants me to pay for it, while this company over here has flavor yyy that's free."
It's just not going to work once people figure these things out. You FOSS/OSS guys underestimate the target audience here...
MS is releasing their stripped IDE's to proselytize.NET. And I personally think it will work ; C#.net is -very- cool, I don't know many people that have actually examined it that don't like it. (read: plenty of anti-MS people hate it without ever understanding it)
Yeah, it would. Where do you see open source changing that, and further, how do propose that we creative developers defend ourselves against a big fish picking the project up and 'providing support' for it, and NOT paying developers?
It may be possible now; but will it be possible once the bigwigs upstairs get wind of the words "free software"?
I don't know about the company most of you work for, but I know plenty of the companies I've worked for were plagued by the suits asking "if there's software out there that will do this for free"... which sometimes is acceptable, other times... isn't.
You're talking about -major- projects, and for products that thrive on support for either open OR closed models. But I develop in business application markets - where the ideal goal is ZERO support and training required. That's the pinnacle of office software - to be so intuitive that a child could use it.
You should be paid for your -features-, not for someone else's work training people on it. We don't pay Ford on the driver's training fees, nor can we.
And I call bullshit anyways - Red hat developers get paid? Sure, but do the hundreds of developers involved with the source upstream from RH get ANY of that money? No...
"closed source has no real advantage on open source."
-->Except for that little thing called "Developers getting paid"... Sure, there's all this "support" argument, but I worked my ass off to get out of support. I don't want to do support. I want to write code that is so good it doesn't -require- support, and be paid for it.
Slashdot Mirror
You really think that once OSS gets big enough, commercially viable enough... there won't be deadlines? And I'm the one smoking something?
So you give away the product, and sell the enhancements... is that what you're saying? But if the enhancements are also open source, you're only going to possibly get paid for the first user who wants the enhancement - because everyone after that gets it free!
Yeah, but even if the GPL forces you to call it "Timmy Ward's Better-n-excel spreadsheet app", MS can still package it and resell it. And, they can sell support for it - something which you as a single person cannot hope to provide.
Yes, but the argument here revolves around 'support' and such. And let's not under-emphasize marketting here. You're right, in that a good portion of the market would go for the free version. But if I understand correctly, MS could release software tools that work -with- the product, that isn't required to be GPL'd (I could be mistaken here). So my scenario is this - that a small business, small project, or even single developer ... basically would get overwhelmed. MS would have something to sell in a box, something they could advertise for... but more importantly, something -they- could sell 'support' and services for, that you could not begin to support at their level.
Basically, it seems to me to be a big opportunity for a company like MS to have a product to sell 'support' for that they didn't write. They could reap millions from this (having the support infrastructure and distribution channels already in place) and you still would see nothing for your work.
I appreciate the informed responses tho, thanks.
True enough; but in this case I'm referring to myself as a single developer (or, say, a small business) and M as a large corporation. Where M can push the software to millions of desktops overnight, I do not have the distribution channels. Sure, I could resell M's additional work, but what's the likelihood that people will buy my work over M's - when M has millions for advertising, distribution methods, servers... see where I'm going here? The OSS movement that intends to bring down M-icrosoft will instead be raped by it. At least, that's what I forsee. There is little I can see to stop it - like you say, IBM is profiting from it, of course they are. Developers putting work into OSS under IBM are chumps if they don't have agreements to get paid (which apparently you do) for the work. Still, you; being a part-developer of the products IBM puts out - have no chance whatsoever to compete against IBM with that software (if we for a moment disregard any contractual IP rights that IBM probably has on you). If you were the original designer and IBM decided even to hire you to get the support for your app, they could make millions from -your- app and you might see the big donut for it, and there's nothing to stop that.
Define "serious". I write enterprise waste management and compliance software for the country's largest hazardous waste management company. WinAMP's an example. But if you think for a moment that the same principle doesn't apply, you're mistaken. User interface design should be as simple and intuitive as winAMP for just about anything - a button for play, a button for stop. Is that metaphor above your head?
"But then when something with the free software doesn't adapt to the situation well, you (the developer) comes around and says "Oh, so you need it to do THAT. I can adapt it to do that, but it will cost you...""
-->Clearly you've never sat in a sales meeting. Clients assume that if you can find the core for free, somewhere out there will be the specific stuff for free.
And besides, once you've written that adaptation, doesn't the GPL declare that -that- adaptation becomes open source too? So in essence, you only get ONE chance to resell your own work. And you think ONE client is going to want to foot that bill? No. Clients buy software at prices that expect that they are not the only one you will sell that to.
No single client will want to spend the $40,000 for an upgrade that you can't even guarantee their competitors won't be able to then download for free. It doesn't make business sense.
You make this sound like Microsoft has never bought and resold software they don't know intimately.
Case in point - SQL Server (one of their core businesses) and this little software called MS-DOS. Ever hear of it?
And are you, dear slashdotter, going to tell me that MS is hurting because of their reputation? If 60B+ personal worth is what you call 'hurting', then I say bring it on.
"Any company should want to hire you, if they are going to provide support for the project you built"
-->Uh, why? Why would a company in Redmond, Wa want to hire a developer in boston, MA, when they've got plenty of developers who can read source & documentation to add to it?
Look, I agree with your point, but that -is- the goal, is it not? Shouldn't our goal be to write software so intuitive that no one needs support for it?
The answer is, of course, yes.
And the closer we get to coding that well, the further we would get from revenue. That's BAD. Real bad.
But again - I'm a developer. I don't want to provide support AND develop, nor does most of the developers out there, and nor are they even capable of it.
THANK YOU for an insightful reply. You've definitely made some interesting points. I still feel, however, that overall none of the above models ensure that everyone in the chain gets their due. Further, it kills IP when my input into the project is not directly linked to any funding; the original inventors of the project could easily never see any cash for their invention when a company resells support (including feature upgrades) for a product. If I develop A, I still see there is no protection keeping company M from reselling A and making additional money selling add-ons; all for a product that I created. M owes me no money, nor do the add-ons garner me any royalties.
Or even non-GUI stuff;
Features like INTELLISENSE... god, makes development SO much faster. Or object browsers, or hell, even just simple project navigation...
Anyone talking trash about an IDE needs their head examined.
So you've never picked up a piece of software and didn't have to call someone for help?
Funny, I don't recall ever needing anything more than a help file on a vast majority of software I use... God help us if WinAMP required support.
Buut, .NET is intended to be available cross-platform. That's the whole point. That's why they've standardized it and given projects like Mono the specs for the IL.
OF COURSE oss drives down costs of startup... The software is vastly cheaper - why? BECAUSE NO ONE IS GETTING PAID FOR IT!
You've got perfectly good points, except you're defending the casual guy (who doesn't care to get paid), but missing the professional developer - missing the business reality of there being no real requirement that any programmers get paid. Perhaps if there was something set up, where people can only see the code if they check some in, and can only get parts of it, and get paid for the amount they work on... but as of yet, there isn't. Would I pay MySQL to add BLOB support? Let me tell you, I would sooner pay MS because they already have it. But that may not stop me from spending a night to add it to MySQL on my own. See, I love the concept of open source; I do. I understand people coding for love. But the concern I have is that there is little to nothing stopping, say, MS, from scooping up a project, putting an MS logo on it, boxing it, and selling it in stores - without paying the original developers a dime. And so long as there's a GPL attached, it'd be perfectly legal; and would perfectly piss off everyone involved in OSS. Am I wrong in thinking that? Is there something to prevent a corporate software grab like that? It's a genuine question.
"If it's really good, someone will even pay you to keep working on it. "
-->Or, someone will sell it and give you nothing.
Why is this such a foreign concept?
You're right, it's not free software. People charge for it, and that's the scary part - because they aren't obligated to pay you for your work.
"And you misunderstand entirely - I said 'I get paid to develop Open Source' not that 'I sell Open Source' - there's a big and subtle difference."
-->There's no difference; You just need to think in a bigger picture - the *I* needs to be swapped with "You and the company that represents your work". At some point in the chain, you are being paid for the sale of work or sale of work resulting from your development. No?
Yes, but while that's fine and well and good, and explainable to other techies, the general populace doesn't get a piece of buggy or obtuse code and say "Well, I suppose I should pay them to patch this!", they say "eff this, this software sucks!" Seriously, find a job in technical support. I spent 2 years as a tier-two technician for a certain software empire. Users don't want to pay for bug fixes, compatability changes, or useability features after-the-fact. They want that in -this- release, free or otherwise. They will pay for good software off the bat... but rarely will they pay for additions to free software. Think about it - where is anyone making money right now selling upgrades? Microsoft -is-, because they've got customers that understand that they pay for the software, and get free bug support, and have to pay for training. People pay for their next version because they can't get that sort of upgrade anywhere else. But with linux, say... customers can say "Well, screw this; this flavor has xxx but wants me to pay for it, while this company over here has flavor yyy that's free." It's just not going to work once people figure these things out. You FOSS/OSS guys underestimate the target audience here...
MS is releasing their stripped IDE's to proselytize .NET. And I personally think it will work ; C#.net is -very- cool, I don't know many people that have actually examined it that don't like it. (read: plenty of anti-MS people hate it without ever understanding it)
Yeah, it would. Where do you see open source changing that, and further, how do propose that we creative developers defend ourselves against a big fish picking the project up and 'providing support' for it, and NOT paying developers?
It may be possible now; but will it be possible once the bigwigs upstairs get wind of the words "free software"? I don't know about the company most of you work for, but I know plenty of the companies I've worked for were plagued by the suits asking "if there's software out there that will do this for free"... which sometimes is acceptable, other times... isn't.
You're talking about -major- projects, and for products that thrive on support for either open OR closed models. But I develop in business application markets - where the ideal goal is ZERO support and training required. That's the pinnacle of office software - to be so intuitive that a child could use it.
You should be paid for your -features-, not for someone else's work training people on it. We don't pay Ford on the driver's training fees, nor can we.
And I call bullshit anyways - Red hat developers get paid? Sure, but do the hundreds of developers involved with the source upstream from RH get ANY of that money? No...
"closed source has no real advantage on open source." -->Except for that little thing called "Developers getting paid"... Sure, there's all this "support" argument, but I worked my ass off to get out of support. I don't want to do support. I want to write code that is so good it doesn't -require- support, and be paid for it.