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."
GNU (Score:5, Interesting)
FSF GNU, it is clear. Charging for software is completely A OK as long as the person gets the freedom to change the software without restrictions. There are some, but they do not conflict with the basic tenant.
Unlike the Paytards I would call them, that believe in licensing software only, no where does the GNU or FSF manifesto declare paying for software is bad.
I am surprised how many MBA people I talk to can't get it. No wonder these people can't handle regular calc and have to take "business" math.
GNU Linux is bought and _sold_ everywhere.
Also, given that a lot of FSF / GNU people have jobs at major corps such as RedHat, I am not sure where the documentation is to support the claim Free Software people insist on non payment of all software.
Thank God too, as I make my entire living building GNU systems and would starve if that was the case.
Stallman has never said that, and the Paytards always bring that up and make the guy out as some sort of commie from the Stalinist days or even Red China.
-Hack
Re:Always love the "some people" bullshit. (Score:4, Interesting)
One datapoint. I despise Microsoft, but it's mainly due to their EULA. And when Apple changed their EULA to copy terms from those MS had used, I extended my disdain to them.
I don't disapprove of their making a profit, but I purely despise their attempts to control me.
I don't believe that mine is a minority opinion. And when people write Micro$oft, I interpret that as meaning that Microsoft is eager to shaft people if it earns them more money, not an inherent disdain for profits. But I could be wrong about that, in any particular case. (I don't recall ever seeing the term "$un" before.)
Re:Always love the "some people" bullshit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Always love the "some people" bullshit. (Score:3, Interesting)
As for clients that argue over the bill, I've never had that happen. Of course I have a policy that I will usually (there may be extenuating circumstances where I wouldn't) refund their last invoice if they are unhappy with the understanding that I will not work with them again. I have had never has a client take me up on that yer nor have they argued over the bill. Maybe it's because I work on server and networking or maybe it's because they usually save a considerable amount after an initial outlay but I suspect it mostly has to do with setting expectations before you start the work. The market really is not as bad as you make it out to be. It is, however, flooded with a ton of MS raised desktop support people who believe in the reinstall, rinse, repeat approach rather than actually troubleshooting the real issue. These people can run up extraordinary bills with little to show for the work.
The desktop arena may be a bit more challenging but if framed right even that is manageable. For example relay the actual cost of using IE and Outlook to the clients this will set expectations for how often machines will need to be re-imaged to get rid of spyware, viruses which you WILL get. Best of luck to you, I do feel your pain only now it's a lot less for me due to moving my responsibilities to FLOSS. I now get to raise my shoulders right off when people as for vista or win 7 support since I've never used either. Mind you Ubuntu and the whole Gnome 3 fiasco is a major PIA for me right now so there are still some problems but most of the work formulating a resolution is also shared across my client base so it's not a total loss.
Re:Always love the "some people" bullshit. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Cherry picked numbers that mean nothing, are cherry-picked and meaningless. They bring in $1b in revenue, they make ~$90m in profits, and that's been dropping steadily. With CentOS and its cousins offering the free option, and Oracle's OUL's primary purpose being to bleed Red hat dry on undercutting their support, it's hurting them, and it's hurting them bad, to the point that they have to charge the relatively ludicrous rates they do. a RHEL contract will cost you more per CPU than OUL will per system, plus RH has this douchy clause in their contract that you have to pay for unbranded installs too (unbranded means Oracle and CentOS-branded).
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).
And you'd be wrong, of course. The "trade up" would be to Oracle, since it costs less and is backed by a powerhouse in the industry (3rd biggest software company, 3rd or 4th biggest server vendor, and one of only two companies who'll provide with an entire stack, top to bottom (IBM being the other)), rather than one that is struggling to stay alive.
In CentOS was helping RHEL, you wouldnt have the unbranded installation clause in the support contract, you also wouldn;t have the clause that terminates your support contract, should you make available GPL-licensed patches for use elsewhere (say, OUL or CentOS). The only way CentOS helps Red Hat is in situations where smaller companies who're reluctant to pay for support, but can't afford a full out IT staff to support and maintain their systems, they get bit in the ass by CentOS, except that the numbers would indicate that more of those instances are heading to Oracle instead.
Then of course there all those integrated solutions, Avaya for example bundles CentOS (and Solaris) in almost everything. They don't have to pay RH, and they're fine sinking the support cost themselves since they're making a killing selling their support anyway, so why would they?
I know Red hat is a slashdot darling and are invincible and powered by pixie dust and IDDQD goodness, but the reality is they have nowhere near the rigor they're believed to have by the community.