Open Source Summit Report 119
An anonymous reader sent us a
Report on Open Source Summit
that you might want to read. I was scheduled to attend, but
LinuxWorld drained me to much- I'm kinda bummed, but this
article will give you a good overview of what apparently
happened. Its the Open Source world colliding with the
biz world, and the sparks definitely fly.
It's not about trust (Score:1)
I run a small software development firm. We do custom applications that run on intranets and websites. Our customers pay us to solve their problems, and they pay well.
We keep the source code -- unless it's contracted as work-for-hire -- but it goes into escrow if the client requests it. That way, if we bail, if we fail, they're covered. If we find another use for our own code, we're free to reuse it, sell it again, adapt it to another project for another client.
I don't understand why we would want to GPL our software. What advantage is it to our clients if we've solved a problem for them that a competitor could gain access to without paying for it, funding the development?
I understand how and why individual programmers should contribute to GPL and open source projects. I can understand why companies like Red Hat and IBM find it advantageous to support something they don't control, can't control, like "RMS/Linux." But what about companies like mine? There's a world market of perhaps a half dozen companies for anything we do.
Am I just confused? Are we supposed to simply release the source code to our clients for the work we do, so they can hire someone else to fix it later, or fix it themselves, but not provide a license that allows them to give it to anyone else? I think RMS would answer with a resounding "No!" But that's the only way I can see it working for us.
It's not about trust (Score:1)
If indeed your world market can be saturated by a half dozen companies, then your software may be better off being proprietary. Most of the advantages of open source are not going to be available to you.
It's fairly simple to see if GPL'ing your software is a good move. Does GPL software currently exist that can be used to serve your customer base without large scale modification? If so, does using this software result in productivity gains that justify you GPL'ing any modifications and additional code you write? If you can answer these questions affirmatively, then you probably ought to take a serious look at doing it.
If the answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask if the added benefit of additional people working on the code is going to outweigh the financial benefits of keeping the code proprietary. If you indeed serve a small market, the answer to this question is almost certainly no. In that case, go on as you are.
Please note that these are opinions based on looking at it from a business perspective (IOW, you want to turn a profit). I realize that they fly in the face of much of the free software philosophy, but you have to realize that for some companies there are only two alternatives: make proprietary software or cease to exist. Whether these companies should cease to exist I'll leave for another day. ;)
*grin* 'Mac' truck? (Score:1)
Another Mac Truck [airwindows.com]
Still Another Mac Truck [airwindows.com]
Yes, that's right- GPLed Mac software, there's the source right there
Mind you, when I am up to it I'll be putting out linux apps right alongside the Mac apps, but the source _is_ open, even now. Things are already rolling in places that might surprise some people.
All Hail the Mac Truck!
It's not about trust (Score:1)
I have no business experience, so this is just a thought experiment.
Suppose you release the base code under GPL. Now, every company has its own distinct needs and modus operandi, so the base code needs to be customised to suit their requirements, right? So convince your clients that they are paying for this customization service (when, in fact, they are paying for the initial development cost of the base code as well).
Now, what happens if another software company hijacks your code (base or customised)? Well,the customised version probably won't suit another company, so you are not losing out there. The problem lies with the base code. But is this really a problem? I think not. Under the GPL, if this other software company uses your base code, they have to release their source as well. That means, YOU have access to their code. If they are of any good, they will improve on your base code. And if your company is of any good, you will improve on that. See what is happening here? A very positive feedback effect that constantly improves the quality of the base code. A win-win situation for all. If there is more than one competing software companies, I am sure your clients will be very pleased to know that by paying you solely, they are in fact harnessing the combined intelligience of several other software companies in the long run.
Will this make a good business proposition? Is this a sound argument? I am no economics/business expert - just GPLing my ideas and releasing it to the larger
I think it all comes down to how well the GPL stands up in court, especially when devious companies attempt to circumvent it by incorporating proprietary code into their products and keeping everything close source.
Re: Scoville overstates things just a bit (Score:1)
I was there as well. I agree; the article makes it sound as though there was a lot of tension in the air, primarily between the suits and the hackers. I didn't get that feeling at all. What tension there was appeared to me to be no more than is to be expected in a spirited debate.
Of course, there were some periods of frustration -- such as the 'how would you know; you've never run a business' remark. (Actually, Wayne and Larry McVoy from BitMover [?] were in a dead heat making that remark, AFAICS. And IMHO the remark was fully justified. :-)
I didn't get the impression that the suits want to own OS, lock, stock, or barrel -- but they do want to learn about and from it. Whether they'll ever 'get it' as a class remains to be seen; lots of people at Big Companies do, but they're not the ones with the golden parachutes.
If you're an open-sourcer, there's a survey asking 'why' at http://Web.Sourcery.Org/os-survey.cgi [sourcery.org].
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
Re: Who was the HP representative? (Score:1)
It wasn't a conference about business. It was about open source software and its trappings, and representatives from business were there, just as there were representatives from the open source community.
If you have to boil it down into camps, I suppose you could say there were the Free Software Hackers, the Suits, and the Hackers Who Sell Their Work. But trying to force people into fewer slots than there are people always manages to lose something.
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
Perceived value - or selling bugs? (Score:1)
Most of my calls to my employer's support personnel have been due to bugs in the systems they are supporting. With a pay-per-call system, the software vendor is effectively selling us the software, then making us pay extra for the bugs!
Oh, and the response ranges from "try switching off the computer" (losing all my work in progress and risking file system errors) to "Oh, yes, that's been a problem for ages - here's how you can try to get around it" (follow on with mind-twisting contortions to avoid a basic flaw in their software).
goes to show (Score:1)
But so does a monastery. So do major professional sports leagues. Nobody complains about socialist monks or revenue-sharing socialist NBA owners.
The GPL actually restricts freedom. Nobody can "sell" a GPL product.
The GPL is a software license. Maybe it threatens me if I'm a (proprietary) software company, or my fortunes are tied to one, but that's not true in my case. I'm not trying to sell anything; if I do GPL something (RSN, sometime around Slash 1.1 :) it will be audio utilities - software that, in various ways, helps reduce my cost of doing (non-software) business, and increases my flexibility in doing business.
Nobody can "sell" the linux kernel to somebody else (I dont mean selling an individual copy, I'm talking about selling the rights). This goes against the most fundamental tenets of capitalist structure - which protects the right to property and the right of sale.
The kernel belongs to Linus, doesn't it? Or "belongs" to the Community. The rights to property and right of sale are there in the license(s); it may be screwy from a traditional POV, but they're there (IANAL).
Even if you dont recognize it, the FSF/OSS/GNU/Linux phenomenon is socialist in nature.
I'll go alert the FBI. Look, nobody has a monopoly on truth. There is much to be learned from both Marx and Adam Smith, from Keynes and Friedman; a fundamentalist of any stripe is often more dangerous than an adept, open-minded pragmatist.
--
BZZZT!! (Score:1)
Thanks for making the Linux community look slapdash at best and illiterate at worst!
slapdash® is a registered name. I'm afraid you'll have to remove it from your post. While you're at it, remove the rest of the words as well :)
Don't give Rob all the glory. Many of us (myself included) do our very best to make slapd^H^H^H^H^H/. look slapdash and illiterate.
BZZZT!!
--
goes to show (Score:1)
But the GPL and business can mix or coexist; not all business is proprietary software. It may become vitally important, as profit margins shrink, that businesses large and small embrace as many Free (or free) tools as they can, rather than be forever dedicating a chunk of their budget to proprietaryware and bigger and bigger hardware requirements. This makes the GPL also a Capitalist Tool, if I may borrow Mr Forbes' line. But if it can also de-FUD-ify the word "socialism" for the citizenry, I'm all for that. It may make for a healthier political climate.
--
Parallels with the 60's ? (Score:1)
People have been saying things like this for millenia. The 60's was just a recent iteration of mass idealism. The top-level post was nice to see, but it was a bit Over The Top; recognition of Open Source® doesn't do a thing to change things like sweatshop labor or corrupt politicians. Sometimes I think we should all spend a little more time in the Big Room, and less time arguing on these pages.
Things did change, but more of a perturbation than a revolution (or do I just take the changes for granted?).
I think it was a revolution of sorts, but assassinations and covert ops got in the way. Every action breeds an equal and opposite reaction: the 70's "New Right", now known as plain ol' "conservatives" have, in a sense, worked hard to reverse (or create FUD about) many changes that came about back then. We now have a military-assisted War on Some Drugs... mass ennui about minority rights, women's rights, abortion rights, labor unions... censorship of music... compassion fatigue... consensus support for military ops against small third-world countries... a general hostility towards dissent...
Of course the major thing I did in the 60's was potty training - I'm an amateur 60's-ologist, not someone who really lived through all the upheavals. Ask instead some open-minded person who was actually there. Don't necessarily go for the textbook version, either.
--
I am glad to see so much happening with Linux (Score:1)
As Thomas Scoville wrote in his article about the Open Source Summit: "Ultimately, Open Source is about letting go." Open Source is like Aikido or like Zen: It is action without control of the conscious mind. The moment you try to steer or channel it, you lose it.
Even Intel will have to learn this.
Great article (Score:1)
Yep, nothing good ever was produced for hire/profit.
The Mona Lisa? Crap! The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? They oughta just spread paint remover on that sucker and get rid of it. The Golden Gate Bridge, Fulton's steamboat, Stephenson's rocket; all should have been melted down into scrap iron. And as for software, I guess people just think they're having fun when they play Quake, Starcraft, Warcraft, Age of Empires, Civilization,
I'll grant that money can motivate people in the wrong direction. But the primary motivation of most hackers isn't necessarily to help others, particularly less computer literate others, it's more typically to do something that hacker needs.
No Need For Concern (Score:1)
It seems to me that it's Open Sourcers who are the ones throwing the slings and arrows. It's open sources who compare selling proprietary software to slavery, who call people like Tim O'Reilly parasites, etc.
If open source is "all that and a bag of chips," it will become the dominant paradigm, no insulting people necessary. If it doesn't, then proprietary folks are providing useful services, and shouldn't have to endure the self-righteous indignation of people who aren't provide those useful services themselves.
I want YOUR code! (Score:1)
Where the hell are these people coming from?!?
Did Slashdot just get a blurb in Windows NT Magazine, or something?
And, sorry, my router won't let you have my IP number.
Furthermore, the Open Sound System is old, give ALSA a try. It's much nicer.
Nice read (Score:1)
Excellent Thoughts about FS/OS (Score:1)
Who was the HP representative? (Score:1)
dropped the laser-guided Clue Anvil on
esr was. Even if it wasn't so direct as
Scoville said, it's been a long time coming.
In fact, it's kinda unclear why a guy who wears
jedi outfits, spends time posting pictures of
Gates-as-Hitler, writes poor, rambling essays,
and reportedly lives off his wife was even at
a conference involving business. Anyone have
a rational explanation?
Felix
They Don't Mix (Score:1)
After all, the real clients are IBM, HP, and Oracle, but rather Free Software needs to sell to people at Nike, Sears, or McDonalds. Non-software companies potentially have a great deal to gain from free software (no more client licenses, no more downtime). After all there are way more programmers working outside the computer industry than inside.
Just something to think about.
Bzzt! Wrong! GNU Emacs is great. (Score:1)
I'm sombody, and it's the only editor I ever want to use for anything beyond quickly editing a file in /etc (I use vi for that).
Reflections on economic & political theories (Score:1)
Currently, we have two basic theories at work here. There is the Stallman's theory of the plain value of unlimited sharing and the Raymond's theory that, basically, unlimited sharing can be compatible with unregulated capitalism. I have a great deal of respect for both men, but they are not primarily historians, philosophers, economists, businessmen, or politicians and I don't think they've "got it" yet.
The strongest area of Stallman's theory, I think, is the long-overdue critique of intellectual property, especially the patent system, which has become very much a tool of corporate power. The strongest area of Raymond's theory, I think, lies in its tolerance of a broad range of approaches. The greatest weakness of both theories, it seems to me, are their unwillingness to deal with issues of organization; they are drenched in the individualist anarchism that has become popular in our time.
The shared software community suffers badly from its unwillingness to organize, in my view. To take a perhaps-slippery computing analogy, it is as if one tried to design a computer, but believed that operating systems were unnecessary, that somehow programs would resolve all issues of resource sharing at run-time and that no program would ever, for instance, step on another's memory location.
At the other extreme, we have the sick-corporate model of development, where it is believed that autocracy can solve all programs, and that organization can somehow substitute for creativity. Perhaps a computing analog of this would be Microsoft.
Such analogies are slippery things at best, and it is easy to construct variants which justify all kinds of horrors--that is not my intent. But I think, in the long term, some of the problems of sharing source code are best resolved by some sort of formal organization, and the sooner we accept this, the sooner we will begin to make progress in this difficult, important area.
The whole *trust* thing can be looked in terms of. (Score:1)
The prisoner's dilemma is a negative-sum game. Software economics is (we hope, anyway) a positive-sum game...but we are still arguing over the rules.
impressions (Score:1)
Nah: go see what the thread on SMP devolved into..
Illpunctuate? maybe..
Who cares?
t_t_b
--
It's the tools for the job! (Score:1)
It comes from people who need to do something but don't have the tool that they need to do the job, it either doesn't exist on their platform or is ridiculously expensive to license. These people have no desire to sell their software, they just want to do the job at hand.
It's not the be all and end all of software development, it just lets me get my job done.
Great article (Score:1)
Hey!! I resemble that statement!
Emacs is the greatest thing since sliced bread!
(BTW, does anyone know the origin of my first statement? The s/resent/resemble deal? I seem to have forgotten it)
Increases profits? (Score:1)
I do agree this is communism at its best, but I prefer the term "democratization of capital". It attracts less flames.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Typical. (Score:1)
Some of us believe in quality over profits, and don't want programming decisions dictated to us by the marketing department. Our kind will grind your kind under the heels of our boots.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Here's what RMS says (Score:1)
Allow me to tell you how my company works.
We have a compliment of 15-20 Sun Enterprise servers for imaging and insurance apps we purchased. The cost of the proprietary software is almost neglegible compared to the total cost of the project (this is the argument MS likes to make against Linux). What we spend most for is (a) people on staff to maintain the code (to the tune of $70-$80K per year), and (b) a hefty annual support contract in case our maintainers get stumped. That's 3 lucrative full-time jobs made by just our division of the company.
About a year ago, I proposed we ditch HP OpenView for our network monitoring, and go with a free solution (Sean MacLawran's BigBrother + Sendpage).
I used old desktops, a spare modem, an extra outside analog line, and 1 copy of Caldera OpenLinux.
Total hardware cost: $0
Total software cost: $49.00
Everybody got shafted and nobody got paid, right? Not really. Because of business requirements:
Annual support contract from Caldera: $1200.00
And because everybody wants constant changes to the system (ie, why does this keep paging me, how can you make the system do X), we needed a Perl programmer (me) to make the configurations and maintain the system.
1 Linux admin/programmer: $65,000/year
If the product were not Open Source, this position would never exist, because no one can make changes to a closed system. Multiply me by the number of companies that might adopt the product. If anything, we need more programmers, not fewer.
just my $0.02
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Sendmail (Score:1)
The whole point of the GPL is that other people can't take your code and use it to shaft you. If you make a program, GPL it, and company X modifies the code, thank them for their contribution.
You as the inventor still hold the trademark on the name.
I think Sendmail is the perfect example of this model. Sure, I can download and install it myself, but then I know how to do that. Most folks wouldn't want to try, and I don't think that will change. Will companies still pay a hefty sum to have the personal attention and support of the inventor? You bet they will! My company would pay for support contracts on ballpoint pens if they were available.
That, and if it's good code you will be revered as a wise and holy man by your adoptors. Then you can write essays and books and sit on panels at expo's.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
It's about expertise (Score:1)
Of course, there are many marked differences between producing chemicals and producing code, but I think in a big-picture kinda way, I've pointed out some of the similarities here. Perhaps the same kind of balance can be reached by Open Sourcers and Big Business? Maybe (though I fear patents in programming as yet) a six-month patent, where you must release the source-code, after which, it's open season on your code? (How would enforcement work?)
One last thing:
Our internal programmers are busy enough with other work that we don't have time to constantly be messing with their source code. One important rule in science is, do the library work before you go to the lab/computer. Odds are, there's a lot of information already out there by people who did similar stuff to you. You can get insights on your issue, and save yourself a lot of effort. Code reuse is not unheard of in programming, as I understand it.
Look at Cygnus... (Score:1)
The biggest misconception of free software (as opposed to "open source", which is free software stripped of its moral undertones) is that it is supposed to benefit the developer. It benefits the user (who often is the developer too).
Aside from adopting a Cygnus-like model there probably isn't much room for free software in your company. Free software is about comodity software. It represents what people need to get the basics done, and the successful free software (like Apache, Bind, Sendmail, Linux) represents software that enough people needed that it becomes ubiquitous. When you're doing support for proprietary software, or developing software for proprietary systems that only a select few will need, then chances are not only is free software not going to give you any gain, it won't give much to the community either.
Think of it this way: if someone could own the air we breath, they would have a great business because people need to breath air and therefore they will pay an arm and a leg to get it. As the air owner, you will naturally be opposed to making the air free, and will question the benefits of any model which includes free air. You want to maintain your monopoly on air. But the rest of the people recognize that such a model isn't a good idea, that air should be free, so that people can breathe without having to pay you for the privilege. Similarly, applications need OSes and utility programs; networks need communication and routing protocols; etc. etc. When the need is strong enough, someone will develop a commodity solution for that need, in the form of free software. While some business models can make money from such commodity software, most can't. It simply isn't going to happen.
You cite the GPL, but the GPL is quite a different beast than say, the BSD or FreeBSD licenses. The GPL (and to a lesser extent, the LGPL) has particular provisions which were introduced specifically to make sure that the GPL'd software does not become de-commoditized, as can, and often does, happen with non-copylefted licences like the BSD and FreeBSD licenses. You ask "Why commoditize in the first place?", so choice of free software license is irrelevant. Others, however, once commoditizing their software, ask "What do I do after commoditizing?" and that's where choice of license becomes an issue.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
goes to show (Score:1)
Let's say I own a home (completely). It's my right to let people into my house without allowing them to sell my house out from under me. The only difference is that with the internet, I have a house that millions may visit with no discomfort on my part (aside from bandwidth).
You're right, the Stallman model of free software is absolutely socialist. But that in and of itself does not mean that it's evil. Emergency care in America is socialist (care is given according to need, and the cost is shifted to those who able to pay it). Many utilities are socialist in nature, in order to ensure coverage.
I am a libertarian at heart, but I recognize that capitalism has its appropriate uses, and socialism has its own appropriate uses. What is the factor of socialism which makes it fail in an industrial economiy? It is a distribution-centric model, and as a result, production suffers (whereas capitalism is a production-centric model where distribution suffers). Well, information already modifies the typical supply and demand capitalist model, because once created, it can be reproduced at will for almost no cost. The costs associated with distribution, such as shrink-wrapped boxes, storage media, etc. are handled in the capitalist model (this is why Red Hat charges $40 for a RH 5.2 box). Cost of production, aside from initial developer cost, is virtually null. Therefore, following even the supply and demand model, the price will be virtually zero (because supply is infitately greater than demand).
The question then is, how to account for developer cost. Well, using Red Hat as a model, some of that may come from the company charging for distribution. Without production, there can be no distribution, and so it is in their interest to make sure that production continues. This cost will be recouped in the distribution charge. In the more common case, however, there is no direct compensation for the developer. The developer devotes his or her free time and effort to the product. His compensation is often a completed product, which may not be possible without sharing the source code and allowing the product to be developed and tested by other people in a free software model. Sometimes, the compensation is more indirect (for instance, developing a killer app which will get more people to use the OS, which will mean more potential developers and testers as well as more interest from other developers targetting the new users, which means more potential support for the platform you're using).
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
It's not about trust (Score:1)
It's not about trust (Score:1)
The point is that if other people take advantage of your code that benefits you as well, through the bug fixes & feature add-ons that they produce. Sure, you're no longer selling IP, but then, it sounds as if you never really were. You're selling the expertise of your programmers. The key is to make sure your customers understand that, and that's a marketting issue. Since the most important thing here (other than the skill of your programmers) is mindshare, wider distribution of your software can only help.
Great article (Score:1)
The PHB wants our hero to "do a demo of the new product" and needs "a banner that says 'quality'."
Your point is well taken and one of the reasons I left industry to work in higher ed. Putting food on the table is great, but there are other things in life much more important than the almighty dollar.
I am glad to see so much happening with Linux (Score:1)
I, for one, am glad to see as many meetings with big companies that respect Linux happeneing. I remember, when I first used Linux, not even Byte had an article on us, much less anything by ZDNET. It was a time when everyone thought the hot new thing was using NT as a server.
It is nice to see a breath of fresh air.
- Sam Trenholme
Who was the HP representative? (Score:1)
While I appreciate the image of a "laser-guided Clue Anvil" it wasn't really intended that way. Eric sometimes gets going about stuff and he sometimes forgets about certain areas. I was just reminding him. I think people are making a much bigger deal out of this than I had intended.
It's not about trust (Score:1)
People always bring up companies like Red Hat as examples of companies that make money off open source. Sure, RH is making money of OSS, but did they write that much code? No. Granted, they did write a little bit of code that has migrated to other distributions, but for the most part, the developers aren't making any money from the OSS they developed. The leeches are. The people selling support and books, who contribute very little to the code itself.
The only developers who seem to make any money at all from OSS are the famous ones, and they all do it indirectly. ie: Larry Wall has his job because of the fame he got from writing Perl. What about the other people that contributed to Perl? Linus got his current job probably in part because of his work on Linux. But what about the many other kernel developers?
People keep saying it's possible to make money on OSS. But every example I've seen has been of non-developers making money. What about the developers? I don't want to provide support or sell T-shirts. I want to write code, and I'd like to make a living at the same time.
It's not about trust (Score:1)
JWZ works for Netscape. Netscape has one OSS "product", which is a "Loss Leader". Their business model requires that they sell closed software (or other things, now that they're part of AOL) to make money. They don't make much off of their one OSS product. You might want to look up what the term "loss leader" means.
Alan Cox is one of the "famous" that I mentioned before. He's hired to work on OSS because he's well known (and for good reason). We can't all be famous though. And if you think about it for a minute, you'll realize that if you have two companies selling Linux supporti, say Red Hat and Linux Care, and one of them has developers, and the other one doesn't, then the one with developers has more operating costs, but no more income. That means it's in the best interest of companies that sell support to have no developers!
Does Linux Care have developers? If Linux Care has no developers they can probably offer support at a lower cost than RH. It'll be interesting to see if they start cutting into RH's revenues. I wouldn't be surprised if places start getting Linux distro's from Cheap Bytes or something, and their support from Linux Care.
I don't know anything about Rasterman, other than the fact that he makes a window manager. How is he making money? Certainly not off of E.
I contribute to OSS as well, BTW. But (like Linus, and many others who contribute to OSS) I also have a "real job".
I know there are some developers who can make money off of OSS. Most are doing small custom hacks though where 99% was pre-existing OSS code. essentially, we end up with a model where those who do 99% of the work get 0% of the money. Think about it. 99% of the code in Linux's kernel wasn't "paid for". I'm not saying there's anything *wrong * with ginving away code -- I do it myself. My point is that those people who contributed that code have to make a living doing something else.
I'm not trying to argue here. What I'm trying to do is find a way for us developers to make a living on OSS. I like OSS, and would rather write OSS for a living. I'd like to make more than a sales clerk while I'm at it though. I also don't like to write custom hacks. That's for plebes. I like to write real systems. Unfortunately, it's the people who write real systems that seem to get no income from OSS though. Then the custom hack leeches come along and make money off of it.
Great article (Score:1)
i __think__ its from the "East Side Kids" comedies from the early sixties, though it wouldnt surprise me if it came from the Marx Bros.
Another similar one: "the feeling is perimutual, i'm insured!"
Garfield? (Score:1)
----------------------
It's not about trust (Score:1)
The GPL proponents say you can charge for your services, but the problem is what one firm paid thousands of dollars for, another can get for nothing, unless you and your clients do the "EVIL" deed of protecting the source code.
The GPL people think we should all hold hands and "share", but the world doesn't work that way.
IMHO, no flaw here (Score:1)
It's not about trust It isn't even about code (Score:1)
It depends on your business. I worked for an Insurance provider that created a complex system that was the lifeblood of the company (If the system fails, the company fails). They made a large investment in it, and if competitors got the code, they would have an easier time entering the market than my company did, and that would allow them to offer the same service for a significantly decreased price.
Here's what RMS says (Score:1)
This is from the GNU Manifesto [gnu.org]. Your only supposed to make as much as a sales clerk, apparently.
Excerpt:"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either.
BTW, I do believe in free software, but not the GNU model, because of stuff like this
The GPL won't help you (Score:1)
The problem with the GPL as I see it is that it takes ownership of the code away from it's creator.
IMHO, no flaw here (Score:1)
I think there is something about GPL that is being missunderstood. I believe GPL works this way: I develope some software and sell it under GPL I only have to provide the source to the client that paid for the software, not to everyone.
You say that some company can get for free what another paid thousands to get. What's the difference with propietary software? If I want to, I can give for free something I've already been paid for.That leaves one solution... (Score:1)
Those of us who know will continue using and contributing to open source. And spreading the word to those who don't know.
But as more and more people realize that open source costs them nothing, you're left with only selling to buisnesses who can't understand.
Suits me fine.
We all gotta do what we can.
Amen. (Score:1)
Those of us who believe will continue on.
The whole *trust* thing can be looked in terms of. (Score:1)
http://www.spectacle.org/995/pd.html
--
goes to show (Score:1)
-Laxative
goes to show (Score:1)
I should take more care when posting...
-Laxative
communitism of OSS vs the competition of business (Score:1)
We also cannot have everything owned or patented by someone. This will force new solutions to new problems, and stifle innovation in general. Basically some entity gets a majority share, and we are forced to deal with their view of things.
Right now NT has a lot of momentum going for it because their is an inter-application data communication model there. (I am aware of its many faults, but it is currently working none the less.) Lots of good software is being mangled to fit this model because no-one can/has? agree(d?) on any other. People who just use a computer need this. They don't need the consulting, downtime, fees, and upgrades packaged along with it.
Linux also has a lot to offer. Good price performance, and customization, and support are just a few of the things that I am happy to see. People who build computing solutions will enjoy the fact that it can be administered easily and remotely, and that it is fast, and that it does not crash often. Currently the time gained here for users is lost though because the applications, and in particular the communication model between them has not yet developed into something robust enough to build upon.
I work for a reseller, and yes we do sell pretty expensive software, and services to make sure that the customer gets the return they are looking for. We have done well so far. In every catagory of software we deal with, I am seeing a trend toward lower cost software, that is easy to use, and that does not require much administration. As a consequence, the market is trading advanced capability for intergration, and standardization. (If I can't spell, please deal with it as it is late.... ) This is in general what people want. They really don't care how it gets done, as long as it does not break the bank, and it works reliably.
Again I am talking about users, not us. They are the people who use the tool because it enables them to perform their job in a manner that is both comfortable, and effective. Learning about an OS does not interest a lot of them. We on the other hand have an interest in how things are built because we are builders. It is us who have to set things up, and in general, keep them in motion, and drive across town to fix a PC!
Why can't people make money by funding the infrastructure of computing, while selling their applications? They can keep those closed as long as they have value. Companies that build upon a stable foundation will get the most return on their development investment, because they can focus on coding their ideas into things people can use, and their customers will be able to use their applications together to get their tasks done. If they are utilizing a particular piece of open code to build upon, and they need more out of it, it should be done OSS style. That way others work is not broken.
The way I see it, the longer an application exists, the more refined it gets. Pretty soon it's overall value goes down because its market gets saturated. Basic computing tools as mentioned above are logical canidates for OSS because there is little to differentate them. Pretty hard to make a mint on a text editor, or perhaps a compression tool. Even a new one. When the existing cash cow apps begin to lose their value, then it is time to start building new ones rather than milking the old ones.
If things are done this way, then eager companies can get the differentiation they need to compete, life gets easier for the sys administrators, and the hardware people get to compete on more levels than just cost.
Later,
The Grand Inquisitor v. Jesus (Score:1)
What I took from the article was an overwhelming sense of optimism. A sense that, dammit, the human spirit IS getting better, that despite all of the talk about Generation X, we ARE progressing, and despite the horrors of our race, that we can, somehow, make things better.
I admit it, I cried when watching contact and the alien said to Jodie Foster's character:
"You humans are so interesting. You have the most beuatiful dreams and the most horrible nightmares."
and I kinda got choked up when the writer wrote:
"though it may test my audience's suspension of disbelief: maybe
this is the beginning of something different, something wonderful. Maybe Open Source will be the beginning of a grand new
adventure for the business community."
Isn't it wonderful, despite the fact that we are talking about human greed and mischief (i.e. business), that people can try to make something better? Isn't amazing that in our small ways we can hope, dammit, that we can shape the world through trust and caring and community even in the face of the 'nightmares' that we live in now?
Maybe I am overreacting, but I see this as one of humanity's beautifdul dreams. Maybe after reading Larry Wall's piece on deconstruction I see the human spirit going more toward freedom and trust. Squabbling aside, strong logic aside, I see OSS and Linux being a spirit-changing phenomenon.
goes to show (Score:1)
However, I wouldn't even grant that the GPL is socialist; it just requires a different model of exchange of value. If you write a program based on my code, then instead of paying me in up-front fees or royalties, you pay me by freeing the source for my use and that of others. Yes, this does create positive externalities for those who contribute little or nothing. But so does the practice of science or medicine or law.
Great article (Score:1)
Let me give you one simple example. One possible principle of engineering is "One cannot solve a problem without clearly stating it." This seems like it would be uncontroversial. However, I have worked for five companies since 1982, and in only one of them was I asked to write a design proposal for any project I have worked on. I write them as a matter of course, but even then, nobody knows what to do with them. Nobody reviews them, because there is no review process. As a result, my projects often don't do exactly what the managers wanted. Sometimes I provide a general, flexible solution where a quick hack was really wanted. Sometimes I do the opposite. Sometimes I don't understand the problem and solve some other problem. If I write a project proposal in which I state the problem and my proposed solution, and even then I frequently get it wrong, how can other people get it right when they don't write proposals, don't do designs, don't do anything like requirements analysis, and don't have any feedback to correct their initial misunderstandings.
The one company which had project proposals in their process only had a process because they wanted to say they were ISO9001 compliant, and they needed process steps for that. The project proposals were completely for show.
So, why is commerce fraud? Fraud is "A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain" according to my American Heritage Dictionary. Since no company says "We want your money, and we'll do anything short of working hard to get it", and their intent is to do anything short of working hard to get it, they are
Of the five companies I have worked for, only one has been in the PC business. Two were in the Electronics Testing business, one was in the compiler and language tools business, one was in the bank software business, and one is in the PC graphics business. The business model for the first four was not set by any vision of emulating Microsoft that I could tell. They were to my mind motivated entirely by unalloyed greed.
I think you could even make a case for a model motivated by greed but tempered by wisdom, but that seems to be too much to ask.
Great article (Score:2)
confusion about "socialist" (Score:1)
One of the tiresome things to listen to in hacker circles is people calling things "socialist" when they really have no idea what socialism means (or the range of meanings that it can have), nor whether the topic under discussion fits the meaning at all.
In fact, the GPL is very property-rights oriented, as anyone who would bother to listen to what RMS says would figure out immediately.
But then, why bother figuring out what RMS is saying, or what socialism is, when you can use other people's uninformed opinions as a crutch.
--------
Look bad in front of whom? (wow. he said 'whom') (Score:1)
Each other then? I would guess most
One thing I haven't seen very often on
Just another difference between hackers and suits.
who talks to kids the way esr talks to suits? (Score:1)
So who's evangelizing for Linux, and helping people learn about it, in the schools? Not the elite universities where you graduate $80K in debt ... what's happening in the state schools, the community colleges, and for that matter, the high schools? Is anyone working on an open-source Logo? (No, no, not that logo [lerdorf.on.ca] -- this Logo! [logo.com]
--sethg, who has a degree in education, but is working as a tech writer because, well, see above about debt...
It's not about trust (Score:1)
I don't understand why we would want to GPL our software. What advantage is it to our clients if we've solved a problem for them that a competitor could gain access to without paying for it, funding the development?
Turn that around: how much advantage would it be for you to be able to get all of your competitor's code without having to pay them for it? Once you rephrase the question from "Is it costing me anything?" to "Is what I get back worth what it costs me?", things change a bit.
I am glad to see so much happening with Linux (Score:1)
this article [zdnet.com]. (The part about Linux starts about halfway through the article.)
Scares the shit out of me.
It's not about trust (Score:1)
You might, however, consider a more restrictive license along the lines of the NPL or even Sun's Community Source License. From what you've said, it sounds like the people who would be most interested in tweaking the code would be your customers. They wouldn't have any reason to resell the product (thus no competition for you), but they do have an interest in seeing it improved. If you restrict your source release to them, you could probably reap some of the benefits of open source development without facing any of the potential pitfalls.
Of course, someone could create a good GPL-alternative and run you out of business. But it would have to actually be a better product, and it's pretty unlikely at this point that anyone could muster the popular support to complete a project with such a narrow audience.
communitism of OSS vs the competition of business (Score:1)
I hope that people read past the title, and into this message, we will see if there is a response...
Ok, here is the main idea of this: The OSS model is specifically designed to maximize quality ("all bugs are shallow with many eyes" ESR), and it does this for the collective good of the community. That is, the function of this model is to generally make peoples lives easier, as bugs will be more transparent, easier to spot and fix. Or taking a step back, and slightly restating it... what is important is the community of users and coders, and their ability to get their work done with as little hinderence as possible. This is a great idea, and lo and behold it seems to be working. What matters in the end is not the success or failure of a single user/coder, but generally the stability of the community, and how a particular change may affect not just one or two users, but everyone. The needs of the community are placed ahead of the needs of one coder/user. This is a sort of social communitism (not communism, but a community focus where one has to look beyond themselves).
Unfortunately, this tends to clash with the mindset of the commercial folks (suits as we are called). In the commercial world, what matters in the end is profit. The tools to make a profit involve intellectual property, differentiation, and demand generation. By its nature, it is not designed to be cooperative, but competitive. While some lambast anyone in a "suit", it is important not to be too antagonistic of the other "side", after all, we are trying to grow the community.
So, here we have two different worlds, one with a sense of significant community and mutual betterment, and another community of competitors, used to differentiation and need-to-know type of scenarios. Can they get along? Should they?
In my opinion (not my companies, they dont tell me, and I have to read about their opinion in Yahoo press releases) there is significant benefit to growing the OSS model within an organization. For one, it can strengthen ties tremendously with the community (which will help the company sell future products). Secondly, with many eyes... better products emerge. Just ask netscape. There are other reasons as well, and I would like to see a continuation of this discussion.
So my point (finally he makes one!) is that maybe the community can help the companies develop the internal OSS model that needs to be in place for this to evolve. I am hoping that the community at large feels that the companies can bring value to this process, and will help the process develop. Remember, that the companies need to make money in the end, so part of this process is to help put out a reasonable business model (eek... business school words!) that works with OSS. Once again, we can turn to Netscape, but they are not necessarily the only model. Cygnus, and many others are quite successful. Once again, we need to appeal to the many eyes (or in this case, many brains) to think this one out.
Overall, the report was interesting, and I hope we see more such meetings.
It's really quite sad (Score:1)
Open source is not just about trust either. It's about seeing what us as humans and hackers can accomplish. We have a passion for computers and we want to get the technology out as fast as possible and then worry about the bugs.
Obviously in this day and age we all worry about the money. But at least in the open source community the technology comes first. Big businesses can't understand this, and they never will. Their soul purpose in life is to generate more revenue than the next corp.
If open source becomes a main stream thing, big businesses will eventually panic because other businesses will come out with even more ideas that they claim originally belonged to them.
As unfortunate as it may be, the GPL and big businesses will never mix.
right (Score:1)
For all of it's flaws, I believe in capitalism. I think you Open Source guys are a little to idealistic. I'd like to here your ideas on how this new society will work cause I don't see how your free, love & peace ideas will work as a real world solution.
Whatever you call it. (Score:1)
right (Score:1)
I'm all for new ways of doing things! Creating, building and "contributing" is the most important thing in my life. I want the world to be a better place just as much as you do.
I think we all to often blame the "system" or the "money" or the "drugs".....our problems lye in how people choose to use these things and our attitudes toward them. People are greedy, not money. I feel our solutions are in educating others to be more compassionate. And to also not make unfounded judgements about others:
>>>>People like you consume, w/o giving back.
We need to have some sort of compensation for the things we make and give to others. I'll ask my question again, In this new world you talk about, where people make things that they don't own and thus can't sell, how are people supposed to feed and shelter themselves?
Whatever you call it. (Score:1)
I want real world examples.
It's not about trust (Score:1)
As a developer, I find it ethically appealing to work for free and donate my source code to the world. But I rely on its intrinsic value to survive. I write code. People buy it. I get a check. I buy food. Life is OK.
In one quarter, I will graduate with a Computer Science degree. The schooling wasn't free (student loans - ack!). The books weren't free. My computer at home wasn't free either. And I will spend a lot of time and effort to continually learn this trade. It is stimulating and enjoyable and I love it. The knowledge isn't secret or arcane; anyone could buy a book and learn to code. But I get paid to apply my skills to problems and to think of new ways to solve old ones. This is my passion. It's not about money. I chose this profession because it is what I like to do. And, fortuitously, there is a market for my skills.
Music CDs are copyrighted to protect the underlying IP. Anyone might transcribe, sample, or adapt recorded music. It is protected because people buy CDs, and there is value in the music on them. If everything winds up on MP3 and is free for the taking, how will musicians survive?
What about other artists or authors? If their IP is free for the taking, how do they support themselves?
The concept of open source and GPL is wonderful and I see great hope in it. But as much as I would love to live communally, share without reservation, and contribute my code to the common good of all humanity, it boils down to two things:
(1) I like to eat
(2) I like to live indoors
If I give my code away as an act of nobility, and donate my consulting services (since apparently this constitutes parasitism), then I hope you won't mind me sleeping on your couch and raiding your fridge. After all, we're sharing, right?
If you can convince enough people to form a networked barter community, count me in.
I will gladly trade my skills for those of a doctor, a dentist, a farmer, and a landlord. I don't even like keeping track of cash. Unfortunately, the rest of society still requires money, and until the GPL concept extends beyond software source code, this is a dream at best.
impressions (Score:1)
Your friendly neighborhood wolfman
Linus is Buddha (Score:1)
whatcha need ya have to borrow...
d