Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Open Source Businesses

Was Advertising in Open Source Software a Useful Experiment? (infoworld.com) 64

Posted by EditorDavid from the this-is-only-a-test dept.
"Given how dependent we've become upon open source software, one would think that we would have a bevy of options for supporting the developers who write the code, but we don't..." writes InfoWorld's Matt Asay, in an essay defending Feross Aboukhadijeh for experimenting with ads in his open source JavaScript style guide library.

"We have some inchoate business and funding models that serve open source companies and open source developers more or less well, and too often less. What we need is more people like Aboukhadijeh earnestly experimenting with ways to make things better, more companies like Tidelift introducing novel ways to fund developers, and more organizations recognizing their own self-interest in employing or otherwise paying the developers who build the software they rely on... [U]ltimately, we need more experimentation, and less criticism." What about donations? As Aboukhadijeh has noted, "Lots of maintainers struggle to reach a barely livable wage via donations...." Linux Foundation Chris Aniszczyk has derisively described the approach [and] goes on to put the onus for paying developers on those companies that most benefit from their work: "[A] big part of innovation comes from developers working at organizations adopting open source software at scale and using it in interesting ways. It's these organizations that should be tasked to sustain open source software versus individuals, especially since they depend on open source software to survive as a business."

Aniszczyk isn't talking about mega-corps throwing money at mega-tip jars. Rather, he's talking about the big beneficiaries employing the developers who build the projects upon which they depend. It's a great idea, and one that has borne fruit in the Linux community and currently in the Kubernetes world. However it's done, there's an underlying principle that is critical to all of this: We need more experimentation.

The first requirement for ensuring open source sustainability is to allow and encourage experimentation. Concerned at his (and other open source developers') inability to make a comfortable living writing popular open source software, Standard co-founder Aboukhadijeh decided to experiment with an ad-supported model...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Was Advertising in Open Source Software a Useful Experiment? More

Was Advertising in Open Source Software a Useful Experiment?

Comments Filter:

  • Sample credits line, and no purchase necessary (Score:3)

    by Empiric ( 675968 ) on Saturday September 14, 2019 @07:03PM (#59195290)

    "Soli Deo Gloria"

    I'll let you all guess as to the ROI until I'm discussing it with Bach.

  • I think this boils down to one of the great imbalances of biology, do you "adhere" to the system that provides some global benefit or do you "cheat" the system for personal gain. I think there's always a balance between the people taking advantage and the people being taken advantage of.

    • I think this boils down to one of the great imbalances of biology, do you "adhere" to the system that provides some global benefit or do you "cheat" the system for personal gain. I think there's always a balance between the people taking advantage and the people being taken advantage of.

      Except no one is being taken advantage of in OSS; as long as everyone complies with the license terms. It would be nice if more developers could make a living with OSS, but the OSS model is necessarily conducive to so doing. If you can build a service model around OSS you can make money but the individual developers are pretty much consigned to doing it for free.

      • The license to my software makes it *legal* for Amazon to build a billion dollar business delivering my open source software while telling me to get stuffed when I suggest they could pay *me* to make the customizations they want. They *can* do that. That doesn't mean they *should*.

        Legally you are allowed to literally shoot yourself in the foot. It's a bad idea. Legally you can make up lies about politicians who see the other side of an issue than the one you are focused on (since they are public figures

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Greyfox ( 87712 )
          Then use a different license. You could use the GPL and require them to return any changes to the community. Or if your software was useful enough, you could just have a commercial license. Or you could use the GPL and negotiate separate licensing for a company that doesn't want to return its changes to the community. You could even go around to various companies that might find your code useful and solicit donations to continue work on the libraries you maintain. The least likely thing to work is using a l

          • He's a right wing libertarian extremist, he's morally required to use the wrong license and then whine about it, because GPL is for hippies.

            • Oh I'm not whining at all. I have quite a nice income.

              Fortunately some people realize that if you run millions of virtual machines on KVM, as Amazon does, it's a really good idea to hire programmers who know something about KVM, the open source hypervisor Amazon uses.

              Some people understand that if you're responsible for many of the world's largest MariaDB databases, when you hire programmers it makes sense to hire ones who know MariaDB.

              Some folks at DTCC realize that since they are responsible for securely

          • > You could use the GPL and require them to return any changes to the community.

            The GPL, as used by vast majority of open source software, does not require returning changes to the community. Particularly not in the case of SaaS.

            GPLv3 has some terms in this regard, but it's broken in other ways and should not be used, in my opinion - particularly by large organizations.

            I find it curious that you actually believe one *should* be the biggest jerk you possibly can be without violating federal law. It seems

        • They *can* do that. That doesn't mean they *should*.

          N, dumbass, it means they should because you gave them permission. Unless you were trying to lie about the terms, but failed, and then you definitely should not whine about your mistake.

          You are not legally allowed to shoot yourself in the foot. Try it, and tell the truth about what happened, and you'll find yourself under criminal charges that vary by State. In my State, you'd be looking at the serious felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon, at a minimum. Facing prison time.

          • Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should (Score:4, Interesting)

            by technothrasher ( 689062 ) on Sunday September 15, 2019 @04:45PM (#59197432)

            In my State, you'd be looking at the serious felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon

            Hmm, now you've got me curious. Which state are you talking about? I know of no such law in my state (MA). There are laws against discharging a firearm in certain areas (near a road, near or within a building without permission, etc.) And there are laws against discharging a firearm as an assault upon another person. There are also many town bylaws with blanket bans on discharge of a firearm, with narrow exceptions for self-defense and public duty. But there's no law specifically saying you cannot shoot yourself, if all other discharge laws are followed.

            A quick Google search turned up lots and lots of stories in several states of people shooting themselves and then being arrested, but mostly for theft, illegally possessing the gun, and/or drug charges. Nothing about being arrested simply for shooting themselves seems to come up.

            Hmm, getting warmer. Found one in FL that comes somewhat close, as the man was arrested solely for "careless display of a firearm", but that's not exactly the same as for the act of shooting himself. Also found one in WI where the man was arrested for reckless endangerment. Thought that was a winner but looking at the statute it only applies to endangering "another's safety" and... yup, also arrested for illegal possession.

            ...wait, wait! There's one in CT from just this past May where the man was charged for shooting himself, among the other seemingly standard charges (illegally possession and drugs)

            So, to sum up, 1) thank you for sending me down this rabbit hole, it was interesting!, and 2) I was unable to find any case where anybody was arrested simply for shooting themselves without other crimes also being charged. I suspect that most law enforcement would be inclined to use any such applicable law as a tack on charge and not as a primary reason to arrest and/or charge somebody.

            • It is unlawful in most states to intentionally discharge a firearm in a way that harms a person. Being the injured person doesn't stop you from getting in trouble for discharging the firearm to such a purpose.

              Even in states without such a law, it would at a minimum be Criminal Mischief.

              • It is unlawful in most states to intentionally discharge a firearm in a way that harms a person.

                The vast majority of state laws that I looked up on the matter referenced harming or potentially harming "another person", not yourself.

                Even in states without such a law, it would at a minimum be Criminal Mischief.

                Well, as it turns out, I have first hand experience here. I've actually been right next to somebody who shot themselves in the hand, because they were being incredibly stupid with a handgun. As soon as I realized what happened, and got the now panicking guy to sit down and stay calm (not an easy thing to do, as it turns out), I called 911. When the police arrived, they w

                • Your anecdote does not involve you learning anything about the law even in the situation you describe, merely about the preferences some cops had in responding. Duh.

                  Did your friend tell the cops he did it on purpose? No? So your anecdote isn't even of the same thing.

                  Have any other stupid comments?

      • Your dog-eat-dog attitude is common among corporate stooges and wannabe stooges ("entrepreneurs"). It's why I no longer contribute to FOSS unless I'm being specifically paid for it.

        Good job cooking the goose that laid your golden eggs!

    • I think there's always a balance between the people taking advantage and the people being taken advantage of.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Except you gain more by hiring them. Way cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Sunday September 15, 2019 @03:30AM (#59195950) Journal

      It's funny to me how many companies pay $100,000 / year to license some software because they are worried about not having support in the open source counterpart, while one of the main devs of the open source is scraping by on $30K or less. You could have the dev full time working for you to make the open source exactly what you need, for less than you're paying to end up with vendor lock-in. AND you can have that dev work on other projects too.

      I've seen some companies I've worked at do this and it works very well. For example, one university used the open source Moodle LMS, rather than paying a huge amount to license and customize an properietary LMS. They spent maybe $20K of my time as a Moodle developer to make Moodle work just perfectly for them. When I wasn't busy being their Moodle developer, I did other programming for them, and was the LMS admin they would have otherwise needed to hire.

      If you business is built on, or even relies on, XYZ software, it often makes business sense to have an XYZ developer in your payroll. So the actual choice is between making less money by not being involved in the project you rely on, or making more money by investing in having the project suit your needs even better, hiring on one of the devs.

      A similar thing that can be very advantageous is getting the open source dev to do a project for you, to customize / update / adapt the open source to your needs. I've seen many times companies buy $expensive_software for $50K because the open source alternative doesn't have some minor little feature the company might need, such as importing the data is a particular format. The open source dev could add that import routine in a day. Instead of spending $50K, they could spend $1K. Also with the open source they aren't locked to that particular dev the way they are locked in to a proprietary vendor. Anyone can work on open source code; the existing devs are just more efficient at it, especially at getting your changes accepted upstream.

      BTW, the Moodle changes I made for an employer seven years ago are still being maintained by the Moodle community, years after I left that employment. By contributing back the changes we needed, my old employer made them a permanent feature of the software. Had they kept the changes private, they would have had to hire someone to update them a couple times be now.

  • https://github.com/sponsors

  • Ads == security threats (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ctilsie242 ( 4841247 ) on Saturday September 14, 2019 @07:30PM (#59195346)

    With how common malvertising is these days, an ad implies that info is being slurped upstream for that sweet analytic revenue, and other potential hanky panky is bring done. I personally would not use a F/OSS library that has crap like that, as it is precariously close to a Trojan, or if I had to use it, I'd fork it and clean the stuff out.

    I understand that the coder wants to make some money from it, but tainting the code is not a good idea.

    • Re:Ads == security threats (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bite The Pillow ( 3087109 ) on Saturday September 14, 2019 @07:55PM (#59195384)

      So useful experiment, yes. It's something to not do again.

      • Yeah, like Robert Hooke's dog lung experiment.

        Except that in this case, we already had all the information and nothing new was learned.

    • To what extent do, say, magazine and newspaper advertisements slurp info upstream? "Display Ads" on Daring Fireball [daringfireball.net] and "Ethical Advertising" on Read the Docs [readthedocs.io] don't slurp up any more than that.

      • We are not talking about inert adverts. This is software, and one bug can make an intended print like experience be a root. Go fuck yourself until you get this.

  • Ads just make me avoid you (Score:3)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Saturday September 14, 2019 @08:13PM (#59195404)

    If you're inserting ads into an app I created, I won't be using you for very long and you're unlikely to get a tip too.

    On the other hand, I do donate or outright buy the services for stuff from developers I use, even if I never need them. I'll buy a new license for every project of DataTables for example even though I have a developers license.

    On the other hand, many people are using libraries either because they can't afford to buy anything today (eg startups) or the companies haven't budgeted and would rather have developers write it from scratch. Many open source projects have grown into enterprises themselves, so it's not impossible, but you have to write something really good and useful to make millions of dollars.

    But just because you write a small library to help yourself or a client and you're putting it online to pad your resume doesn't entitle you to any money. I open source all the time, the client has paid for my time and effort, I don't see why I should continue seeking rent from anyone that may want to use it.

    • This is an interesting point, I make it a rule to (if possible) to never purchase anything that I see in an intrusive ad, for the most part that includes literally everything on my phone and select things on my PC. Sometimes that's not possible for various reasons (Amazon, etc...), but it increases negative opinion in those cases.

    • "because they can't afford to buy anything today (eg startups)"

      Almost all startups are funded with millions of dollars from the Sandhill Road money cartel. They very well _could_ contribute something to the developers of the software on which they build their wannabe business. However since they are not required to, and have the reptilian social conscience of the cartel, they _choose_ not to contribute anything.

  • Must be more visible to the end user (Score:3)

    by HalAtWork ( 926717 ) on Saturday September 14, 2019 @08:17PM (#59195414)

    What about donation buttons beside the download button in the software store? Usually you'll only come across a link to donate in an app's About dialog, if that, and you probably would never know how to donate to a GUI-less tool.

    This has to be more visible to the end user. Right now you have to look for information on how to donate and there are multiple steps. It is also a new concept to many users and they may not even know how open source software is supported, like family members where you just set up their PC for them and that's the end of it.

    There are many people who can't be bothered if there are extra steps until it is uncomfortable for them to avoid it. Let's not get to that point where software is nagging the user.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      People have become wary of donation buttons because so many of them are scams.

      Take Prager U for example. Website full of donation buttons, the whole thing pretending to be some grass roots effort. But actually it's well funded by billionaires and your money is completely wasted on them.

      Plus with open source software I've found that when people donate they expect something in return. If you then turn around and tell them that you won't implement a feature because it is too much work they want their 5 bucks b

  • While I don't disagree with the general point... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday September 14, 2019 @08:20PM (#59195422)

    And in principle I don't have an issue with what Feross Aboukhadijeh tried to do. But I do get tired of articles like this one where the writer seemingly ignores that there are companies which are doing quite well in the open-source software space - like Red Hat (now part of IBM).

    It's true not every independent open source developer gets the kind of financial support he feels he deserves for his work. In some cases it probably is because their users are cheapskates. But it's likely also true that many of these developers have overestimated the importance and value of their project.

    • And IBM, for that matter.

      And companies like TI. I wouldn't buy their hardware, I wouldn't design embedded systems around it if they didn't have excellent driver support in an open license.

      ARM provides an open software ecosystem that often provides an alternate driver, too.

      It actually seems rare that an independent developer releases something useful and valuable. It does happen. But if they care about getting paid for their work, they could easily get a job at any of the companies using their software that

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • FOSS has never been about money (Score:3)

    by cas2000 ( 148703 ) on Saturday September 14, 2019 @08:47PM (#59195470)

    Neither Free Software nor Open Source are a business model or a way of making a living. They're not "freeware" or "shareware" or "nagware". And they're not just another gig-economy hustle.

    They're about sharing source code and allowing others to do the same.

    Requiring that it turn a profit or that you can make a living from it are both fundamentally incompatible with FOSS, and inherently corrupting to the development and distribution processes.

    If you don't want to share source code because you can't make a living at it, then don't.

    • Yeah, this whole eating twice a day thing is overrated.

    • "then don't"

      A lot of is don't anymore.

    • Requiring that it turn a profit or that you can make a living from it are both fundamentally incompatible with FOSS, and inherently corrupting to the development and distribution processes.

      No they're not. If you as a company use a piece of FOSS software and save a few hundred thousand by not having to develop and maintain it in house or purchase it from a third party, then you ought to chuck some money in the direction of the developer in order to mitigate that risk in future.

      The thing is just because you

  • I started using the internet when it was called arpanet. You did not send unsolicited emails to many people. I accidentally sent a message to a group that was not relevant. I got harsh replies from most of the members and felt bad about my error. Now email is extremely abused on the internet.

    Open source code must not display unrelated messages of any kind. Otherwise the result will be spam just like email. It is up to us developers to squash this right now.
  • Welcome to how micro-transactions got started, a solution in search of a problem that has literally nothing to do with the work at hand.
  • How about something like the screen actor's guild for open source? Members pay dues to the alliance, the alliance sets norms and enforces license terms, pursuing legal action similar to how the movie, music, and publishing industries enforce copyright infringement. Make dual licenses the norm -- if you're making money off the software, royalties are due to the developers and/or alliance.

  • Advertising in what??? Oh, wait .. (Score:3)

    by CptJeanLuc ( 1889586 ) on Sunday September 15, 2019 @02:24AM (#59195878)

    OSS advertisement? My first thought was ads in source code comments. Must be tired this morning.

    import math
    # Code too complex? Have a Coke Coffeine Extra Plus!
    math.e ** -complex(0,math.pi) + 1

  • Advertisements are toxic and should be avoided. They always exaggerate or even lie, therefore advertisements make lying or at least not being objective accepted and even the norm. Advertisements waste time, space and other resources.

    The money and resources spent on making advertisements is paid for by the product prices, creating an unavoidable tax for everyone (ok might not apply to funding OSS). Advertisements often introduce security bugs.

    Advertisements are morally wrong. It is one of the main benefits o

  • Why don't these devs have jobs? (Score:3)

    by misnohmer ( 1636461 ) on Sunday September 15, 2019 @07:46AM (#59196262)

    Skilled developers have no problem finding jobs working for tech companies getting paid significantly more than $30K a year, so it sounds like there more to this story of "poor OSS developers making less than $30K a year". I suspect what we are missing is that those developers only wish to work on what they feel they want to work on, when they want to, and implement things they way feel like, rather than take orders from an employer. If you want to make money, you have to do what people are willing to pay for. If you can't figure it out, get a job where a company will tell you what to do so that they can get people to pay for it and in turn pay you. If you think you know better what people will pay for, work for yourself and pay yourself whatever you you deserve.

  • We already know that online ad culture actively promotes mediocrity and prefers quantity over quality, so allowing ad schemes in order to finance FOSS mean that you'll have increasingly more software of increasingly lesser quality. This is true for online content as well.

  • As an open source developer, I absolutely do not want companies hiring the developers of libraries they use. If you work for a company, you serve them. You have to do what they want, even if it's the wrong thing for the software or the community. This is a way of supporting developers, not a way of maintaining a healthy open source ecosystem.

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close