What's The Linux Kernel Worth? 376
schneelocke writes "What's the value of the Linux kernel? After an offer by one Jeff V. Merkey to pay 50K USD for a BSD-licensed copy of Linux, David Wheeler does some calculations and comes up with an estimate of 612M USD." Wheeler has come up with a number of interesting software-worth estimates and other quantified facts about Free software; since some aspects involve ineffables and hypotheticals, the details can be argued, but he provides a good framework with SLOCCount.
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not quite true. The market value is what the market would buy the product for, if it WAS for sale.
Imagine that you have a car, which you for whatever reason don't want to sell at the moment. This doesn't leave your car with "no market value". The market value is still what the market would have bought it for if it was for sale.
What's the Linux kernel worth? (Score:2, Insightful)
In an increasingly technologically based society and future, the GNU license provides the theoretical foundation for freedom.
It's Linux, and all the other Free (as in speech) software that gives us the practical foundation to realise this freedom.
What price on that?
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
In your example there is a market for collector cars which can be used to find a market price.
But it would be better to say "priceless" than "nothing"
Re:Nothing (Score:1, Insightful)
Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mu (Score:5, Insightful)
What is air worth? Some things have great value, but simply trying to measure that value in dollars is to misunderstand the nature of that value.
Re:612 millions? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the way the market works though. Only a small fraction of people pay full asking price. The others pay less via sales, rebates, coupons, volume discounts, or other incentives. And yes, some will pay zero by stealing it.
The key to maximizing profit is not to have one price, but to have a spectrum of prices that extracts the most money that each group is willing to pay...
Voodoo Economics Again? (Score:3, Insightful)
We can, to some extent, model the overall economy and predict economic growth, but such models are imprecise. Further, modeling the overall economy is easier than predicting the precise value of a particular good or service because the overall economy is a lumped parameter, the net result of a multitude of forces. Consider predicting the price of an individual stock versus predicting the price of the S&P 500. The latter is hard but roughly do-able; the former is impossible.
So, attempting to calculate the value of the Linux kernel is just another exercise in voodoo economics (tm).
If we really could calculate precisely the value of the Linux kernel, then the implications would be enormous. We could then calculate the true price of all goods and services in the USA. There would be no need for a market economy. The government could then control the economy in much the same fashion that Lenin proposed. The government could then give everyone a number representing each person's correct salary and, also, assign the correct price to everything. There would be no unemployment or recession.
Nirvana.
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Estimating based on what it would cost in a commercial environment is also flawed, because there are too many variables to consider. If it were developed in, say, Silicon Valley, each programmer's hourly rate would probably approach $100. If it were developed in, say, Boise, Idaho, the hourly rate for these programmers would probably be in the neighborhood of $20 to $30. There is also development models, management, total personnel required, etc. These things will all vary depending on the nature of the business, what kind of timelines they were looking at, who the management team was, etc.
The bottom line is, since the developers have always been paid nothing for their work (except those that are being sponsored by commercial entities), the total value of their time put into the project is $0. Sure, you could try and put it in terms of an opportunity cost to the developer, but that sort of thing leads to inflated valuations, since in all likelihood if these guys weren't writing the code in their spare time, they would be doing some other hobby that doesn't pay them anything instead.
The bottom line here is, the only time that you can assign a value to is the time that someone actually received a wage for. This is a small minority of the overall code base, so by that method the code would not be worth much at all.
Therefore, all we are left to consider is whether or not Linux is a good value to the consumer. Generally speaking, a good value to the consumer is one in which they extract more value out of the product then what they paid for it. Since most people get Linux for free, it doesn't take much to get more than what you paid out of it, especially if you use it in a business context. There are those, of course, who will get negative value out of it (they get frustrated and throw the computer out the window, for example), but the vast majority of users will get a net positive value out of the product. Putting a dollar amount on that value is difficult, though.
No price is high enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about that, and then tell me how much the Linux kernel is worth. $50,000? A few hundred million? A billion or more? Nope -- it's like a MasterCard commercial, in real life. "Having an operating system Microsoft can never own: PRICELESS."
I suppose I could get a "funny" mod by saying "There are some things money can't buy; for everything else, there's Microsoft" but I'm actually dead serious here.
pretty safe offer (Score:5, Insightful)
Value of Linux to a single user (Score:1, Insightful)
Saying Linux is worth $600M doesn't make sense to a single user, since they can opt for another kernel. But if you can find 12000 small companies, then sure.
The guy clearly wants to use the kernel in a BSD way, which I interpret as wanting to modify Linux without telling the rest of the world about how. And possibly get away from getting accused of breaking the GPL.
What I don't understand is _why_ the guy wants a BSD copy of the Linux kernel. If he wanted to add a specific feature without releasing the code, he could just add for a binary one, right ? (Just like NVidia does)
Re:Nothing (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:GPL vs BSD (Score:2, Insightful)
Your "experiment" has already been done: linux IS the GPL case, and the various BSDs are the BSD case. If linux has been wildly more succesful than the BSD variants...
well...what does that tell you?
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
A DSL connection to the internet: $50
A decent PC: $500
Downloading enterprize-class source code: Priceless.
There is some code you can't buy, for everything else, there's Microsoft.
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we keep saying this when it is so patently untrue?
Were the SGI engineers payed nothing for their work on the Linux kernel? The DEC engineers who made 2.0 possible? The IBM engineers who ported massive amounts of IBM code into Linux (the topic of a lawsuit, I'll remind you) and wrote a good amount of their own code? What about the Red Hat engineers who have contributed hugely? Alan Cox isn't paid? I think he'd be upset to hear it. Last I checked Linus was being paid specifically for his work on Linux by OSDL.
These are just the high-profile cases. Dozens of people around the world are paid to work on specific niches of the Linux kernel all the time.
Same thing goes for the rest of the OS tools, utilities, and subsystems.
The fact that some, even a majority (and I'm not conviced on that point) of the work might be gratis does not mean "the developers have always been paid nothing."
Very little (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL vs BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the people who have contributed to Linux have specified the GPL. They do this, because in return they get anyone else's improvements to their code, and they also benefit from the entire GPL community. It isn't altruism.
It's interesting to note that Linux picked up a large set of talented developers very quickly. When Linux was starting up, BSD was mired in some legal battles, which certainly hampered it. But since then, developers have worked on GPL projects like Linux more than on BSD-licensed projects. There are many possible explanations for this, but it's a strong indicator that the GPL is more attractive to developers.
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently that is what some people here think. They also think my wife is worth nothing I might add. I however think she is priceless, as is my son.
A Nony Mouse
Re:Nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
The greatest part of the "worth" of these things is that they are public and shared freely with everyone.
Why the hell would some idiot want to buy a BSD-licensed Linux? Just go get yourself a BSD.
Re:Afraid of a little competition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL vs BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted it does happen (as in the case of apple) but it is kindof enforced under the GPL and I think that gives the developers some solice that they wouldn't have under a BSD style license.
How would you feel if someone took your work, made a change or two and sold it as their own? I'd be pretty pissed.
Re:Nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Value is entirely contextual. A quart of pure water is worth a lot more to someone stranded in the deserts of Utah than it would have been to a member of the crew of the Edmund Fitzgerald, for example.
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
So... if I fix a flat tire on my car myself, that labor has a value of zero dollars? Even 'tho I just saved myself twenty bucks? If I fix my neighbor's computer for free, saving her fifty bucks in the process, the value of my labor is zero? If I spend some time I could be laboring for a paycheck instead engrossed in a hobby, that time has zero value?
Dude... you got some fucked up values
Value:
1 # An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
2 # Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.
3 # Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.
4 # A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: "The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility" (Jonathan Alter).
Therefore, all we are left to consider is whether or not Linux is a good value to the consumer.
By your measure it's not - it's completely worthless unless that consumer paid for it.
What is the value to me of a diamond? Only what I could sell it for - I have no use for a diamond (unless, perhaps, I need to cut a piece of glass). Bottom line is you expended a lot of words saying nothing. Value and price are not directly related, nor even comparable to one another.
You confuse investment with worth (Score:3, Insightful)
You confuse investment with worth. Companies fail to recover their investment costs every day because the market says their product/service is not worth that much. Would you value MS Windows at how much MS has spent on it?
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Not "poisonous" at all. Keep your FUD out of this. While one can take BSD licensed source code and create a binary closed source product, this is not "poisonous". The orginal source code is still there. The orginal project is still there.
It would be like someone taking one apple from a free apple tree and locking it up. Are people going to be screaming "he poisoned the tree" when he locks up one apple? Of course not!
Suits and PHBs have heard about Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and the older uber-geeks often prefer the BSDs. However there is much more hype about Linux and the suits and PHBs have heard about Linux. In short, Linux may be an easier sell for some application for political reasons, not technical reasons. Welcome to the real world.
Re:You just can't... (Score:1, Insightful)
In that case stick to buying prostitutes.
Re:Nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Priceless is running it on your home computer, finding a bug, fixing it, and having Linus Torvalds tell you your patch is going in and millions of other people will see it in an hour.
Re:You just can't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I'm trying to suggest is that, like the works of Van Gogh or Matisse, Linux is perhaps greater than the sum of its parts. Even if you were to cleanroom reimplement Linux, that only takes care of the engineering side. We live in a world where intellectual property is king, so shouldn't some financial regard be given to the sometimes simply wonderful ideas, the ways of doing things, and so on.
As Microsoft may well find out in the years ahead, you just can't buy the kind of dedication for and belief in some of the open source projects out there. True, most people do have a price, but they will work harder and better when working for themselves.
iqu
Re:Merkey's offer doesn't make sense to me ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, most of the same PHBs would run screaming from the room if you said "lets run that server app on an Apple platform."
Sorry kids, Apple does NOT have a great deal of mindshare in the enterprise market. I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time I've heard the comment from upper management at various businesses that they have to get "those people off those Macs" and the words "those people" are heavily emphasized.
null vs zero (Score:3, Insightful)
The market value of the linux kernel is null--it does not have one. That's very different from having a value of zero, which would be the case if there were a market and the only way you could transfer ownership of the kernel in that market would be to give it away.
There can be no seller (Score:4, Insightful)
The Linux code is owned by, perhaps, thousands of people [the individual contributors/copyrightholders]. Each of these could sell you non-GPL rights to their code, but not to anyone elses.
Linus "owns" probably less than 10% of the code. That'a a much bigger share than the 0.05% or so that I've written, but he still can't sell it.
Re:Nothing (Score:2, Insightful)
This while thing looks shady though.. A post on some board for a $50K deal?
Combining your post with a letter one. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is not a market for Linux kernels.
The Linux kernel still has value in the earlier market.
There is a market for paintings.
There is not a market for Mono Lisas.
The Mona Lisa still has value in the earlier market.
What exactly would you be buying? (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly would you be buying?
The right to make it proprietary? (Sell it or a derivative for a lot of money) That'd be worth a lot to a few of companies - who wouldn't sell it they'd just keep it locked up and continue selling their own product?
The right to use it? Value there would be $0 thanks. You already have that for free unless you want to modify in a way that doesn't comply with the GPL.
The right to sell it. People already do that - oh sorry correction my mistake sell support for it.
The question is pointless because you can't un-GPL it once its been released under GPL...which is the point of that license.
I think the question being asked here is what would it cost to develop something similar? The answer is bucketloads. But why would you want to? How many freaking times does UNIX need to be redeveloped. Go create a different OS.