Open Source Advocates' Attitudes Toward Profit 208
jfruh writes "Marten Mickos, ex-head of MySQL, was discussing his new open source cloud initiative with the New York Times when he mentioned in passing that 'Some people in open source think it is immoral to make a profit. I don't.' This has set off some predictable hand-wringing within the movement. While some community members are ideologically opposed to profit-making, that attitude isn't held by a majority, or even a plurality."
Always love the "some people" bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
In a large enough group, there are always "some people" (more than 1 person) who believes X.
Whether X is that they've been kidnapped by aliens or whatever. In a big enough group there will be "some people" who believe it.
So knock it off! If you cannot point to them, shut your mouth.
Re:Always love the "some people" bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman is some person now?
The problem comes from Stallman's idea that all software should be FOSS and money should be made from support(Stallman isn't opposed to selling the software, but having a buildable source will allow any user to post the software for any cost or free). So the money to be made is squeezed into only support. Take RedHat. The community immediately took the sources and made CentOS which is used in many small businesses instead of paying for Red Hat.
Maybe some companies and developers can live on giving support, but for the vast majority of software developers, thats not possible when anyone out there can take your code and build their own. Apply this model to the Android or Apple app stores and there would disaster with the software clones. Already games are being cloned without the source code available and this is a huge problem. Forcing the apps to be open source will lead of chaos and there will be no incentive to create big games like Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Infinity Blade(cost a million or more develop). What should they do? Sell support for Angry Birds?
there's a difference (Score:3, Insightful)
between making a profit for profit's sake and simply making a living.
public companies who answer to shareholders first and foremost tend to do the former (and aggressively so), while small businesses and mom and pop operations are usually happy with the latter.
Re:Always love the "some people" bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is, "sell support" doesn't go very far when the "buyers" are cheapskates.
Stallman's model works fine back in the day when computer operators were revered people, but falls down flat these days when 90%+ of computers are used to accomplish some task, and those knowledgable enough to fix/understand computers are tiny minority. The majority want computers that work, but they also don't want to pay for it.
If you don't believe me, tell your family member to go to Geek Squad to get their computer fixed. They'll balk at the $40/hour charges, and see no reason why you can't spend the 20 hours it takes to fix up their computer.
And if you're trying to do computer support, be prepared to have your clients spend hours dickering over every hour you charge. You billed 10 hours, they'll ding it down to 9 and waste 4 hours of your time doing so.
And no, it doesn't matter what profession the client is - lawyers will dicker just as hard (or harder) over that hour that they charge $200/hr for.
Well, there's always one... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's always some nutcase out on the fringe.
RMS himself is entirely happy with making a profit on software---the FSF used to sel lthe GNU tools on tape to raise funds.
Re:Mother Theresa Principle (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for providing a perfect example of his point. ;)
One root of the "problem" (Score:3, Insightful)
A big part of the dispute is that some folks aren't happy with saying, "I don't sell my software for profit, I contribute it to the community." but instead insist on adding, "And I think that's what you should do, also."
Re:Profit vs. revenue vs. working for free (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people work for "free"? Unless they're forced to do it, they're getting something out of it -- recognition, personal satisfaction, utility, resume padding, to get laid at LUGs, etc. Hell, even if there's a gun at head, you're still getting something out of (i.e., not being killed).
Is it better if someone fixes a bug (for free) in gnumeric because it helps him keep track of all his rape victims vs someone who fixes a bug (for money) in gnumeric because he's being paid to do so?
Re:Always love the "some people" bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well hang on a minute. Yes, let's take RedHat as an example. CentOS and it's cousins like Scientific Linux may well exist, but RedHat are still turning $1b a year in income. RedHat add enough value to their products that apparently there are plenty of people out there who are very happy to pay them rather than use the free alternatives.
If anything I'd argue that the likes of CentOS actually help RedHat. If a company starts on CentOS they may well decide later to "trade up" to RedHat to get access to the benefits of RHEL (perceived or real).
Re:Always love the "some people" bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Bill Gates is an evil profiteer!"
1. He is.
2. Profiteering is not the same as making a (fair) profit.
except in 2008, when it completely failed (Score:2, Insightful)
and the major banks 'allocated resources' to mortgage securities that were basically garbage, and housing got built that immediately started to rot because nobody could afford to buy it at the artificially inflated prices of the housing bubble.
'oh thats wasnt capitalism it was backed by the govt and evil regulations'.
yeah, well, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Deutschebank, BNP Paribas, AIG, all the monoline insurance companies, a couple hundred hedge funds, mutual funds, etc etc etc, all decided to 'allocate capital' to this "evil govt program". They weren't objecting to Fannie and Freddie, they were aping fannie and freddie. all of these private businesses then benefitted from the govt bailout too.
in other words, these are the 'bastions of capitalism'. these are the guys who fund the Ayn Rand institutions and the theoretical economists and think tanks to push "capitalism" whatever that means. what it has actually meant in reality is some kind of unholy alliance with the govt to bilk taxpayers out of money, and has very little to do with a 'free market'.
Re:Here's my attitude... (Score:2, Insightful)
He's a hypocrite. He has no problem with people violating others copyrights (see here [slashdot.org])
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)