Open Source Discussion

Why does someone make their product OpenSource? Several reasons:

If it's open, they get it maintained for free. They open it up to make money by saving money. Do you want to outlaw saving money?
If it's open, they make a reputation that opens doors for them. Wouldn't you jump at the chance to employ or work with LinusTorvalds or TimBernersLee? Do you know how BillJoy got his start?
If it's open, it causes a change in peoples' behavior. What would the world be like today if the inventor of WashingYourHands? hadn't given his invention away for free? Where would it be today if Pythagoras had?
If it's open, it's much easier for it to become a standard. What would you be reading now if WardCunningham had patented wiki? And how could wiki have taken off if he had done so?
If it's open, they can use it no matter where they go or who they work for. Several very useful tools started out closed, but got opened by their creators in open negotiation with their employers.
If it's open, it can no longer be controlled or manipulated by corporations and governments. PGP and its friends are a way to keep people free.
If it's open, it makes money for the people who make your tools, thereby improving your tools faster than if it's not open. This may seem a trivial benefit to you, but most non-trivial tools in all software shops worldwide are created with entirely free tools.
If it's open, you take money away from the CorporateCommunists and put opportunity back in the hands of the only real capitalists - OpenCapitalists.

"The Freedom to Innovate" - Translation: "Our Propaganda Phrase for Dominating the Global Economy."

I don't understand how that is an AlarmBellPhrase. That seems like more of a close-minded knee-jerk reaction. If you want to hear more on BillGates' view on what he thinks "freedom to innovate" means, you might want to read http://www.redherring.com/mag/82/gates.html. -- SunirShah

I have come to the conclusion that the word innovate means something different for Microsoft than it does for the rest of us. I suspect it's a formulation in that brand new proprietary language of theirs that we'll all soon have to pay to speak, MicrosoftEnglish. -- EricHopper

DoublePlusGood.

I have trouble following various parts of that interview. Gates talking is so vague it's hard to get what he means. The bits I did get were often wrong. For example, the DoJ didn't mind IE being put into Windows. They minded it being distributed as a standalone product at the same time. It's hard to believe that Gates doesn't understand this. -- DaveHarris

I mind it being required to this day for non-Internet products. If someone needs to embed a browser in their software, then fine, IE can be a requirement for that software (although authors should keep in mind that today, there are indeed more choices for embedded browsers, and the end-user might actually have a preference.) However, there's far too much software out there that requires IE - and therefore doubles the memory requirements for the OS itself - when it isn't Web-enabled at all. -- MattBehrens

... then again, he doesn't remember what he meant when he said he'd "piss on" somebody else's platform. I'm sure he was just having an off day ;-)

Counterpoint: Stuff is said like this in *every* type of business *every* day.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

Again, from MicrosoftAlarmBellPhrases:

: (Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating-system chief, Jim) Allchin said he's concerned that the open-source business model could stifle initiative in the computer industry. "I'm an American, I believe in the American Way,"

http://web.archive.org/web/20011201063013/news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html

That's right. He's right and I and many others share that same concern. I want to get paid for my code , no ifs ands or buts.

Sure, but do you really think that unless open source is outlawed you will no longer get paid for your code?

Let's not forget, plenty of people are getting paid and making money writing (and selling!) Open Source code. If you don't understand how, perhaps you need to go back and review what Open Source means. -- StevenNewton

I *have* read and reviewed all of what it says and I have talked to a lot of smart people on what it means, especially here. Most people have told me, in essence, that I should shift to a services metaphor; that the software should be free and we should shift to selling services to customize and support that free software. This is *not* what I ever want to do. I want to continue to write software (original, non-services software) and get paid for it. This is the American way. This is how we all got to where we are now. The net economy and the free software economy don't work and the market and the stock market have shown it.

: (That's possibly a bit premature. RedHatTheCompany is now profitable: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19832.html)

I have read RichardStallman's comments and he says that if I have 2% GPL code, then the whole app has to be open source GPL. They're not too quiet about constantly soliciting us for donations though.

Counterpoint: ...if I have 2% proprietary code, the original owners can sue me to prevent me using it entirely. They're not too quiet about constantly soliciting the government to eliminate FairUse though.

Another Counterpoint: To quote a sig on Slashdot "If you don't like the GPL, write your own code". GPL code has the same copyright protection as any other computer program, it's just that the owner chooses to license it differently.

Before anyone gets too excited over MS (or any other monied interest) trying to outlaw open source software, it's worth pointing out the fundamental impossibility of outlawing the act of giving something away. Our Constitution has strong protections for our right to dispose of our property as we see fit; that includes our intellectual property. Allchin's vague comments about exerting some influence on our legislators shows that he slept through high school civics more than it shows a real threat to open source.

On getting paid for your code: the existence of open source (or specifically GPL'd software) doesn't mean that you can't charge for your product. It means that the buyer needs to find a compelling reason (features, function, quality, support) to pay for your product instead of using a free alternative. Free market economics doesn't play favorites. And, The Freedom to Innovate includes the Freedom to Fail. -- StephenShipman

So Allchin is not completely wrong here. It doesn't actually matter which monopoly pays for "free software" (I mean, tax monopoly, which funds universities that produce copylefted software, or OS monopoly, which distributes its own "free" software to attack competitive markets), the results can harm companies that try to invest into the software development.

This is not a request for action, just a point to consider ;) -- NikitaBelenki

You can still get paid, whether it is GPL or other free software/open source licenses, such as by support contracts, physical media, computer hardware, donations, etc. You can also get paid if you are writing a program for someone's internal use and get paid for such thing, even though you can make it free software/open source and available for other people too (even though those other people, who didn't pay you, didn't make specifications, so it might not be exactly what they need); I have done this a few times.

...I mean, tax monopoly, which funds universities that produce copylefted software, or OS monopoly, which distributes its own "free" software to attack competitive markets... -- NikitaBelenki

You forgot the worst part about the government software monopoly: pricing. It seems like every time I upgrade Emacs I pay ten times as much as I did the previous time. -- GeorgePaci

Don't like OpenSource? Why not compete with it? I don't see much that's American in moaning about competition. (By the way, I don't see the RedHat folks starving...)

But many of their stock-holders are. RedHat's founders made a mint on the backs of many hard-working open source coders who still don't have any money. Have you looked at the stock market and Linux stocks lately????

RedHat sells service and support for Linux. You can download every bit of OpenSource code they use for free. You have to pay to ask them questions, or have them set up your Linux box. They're making money off OpenSource coders the same way the guy who cleans your rain gutter is making money off your trees. -- PeteHardie

Yahoo is running a 'clarification'. In particular, it says, it is the GnuGeneralPublicLicense, not open-source generally, this is the problem. This jibes with the misunderstanding of open-source == GPL, and also the comment above re: "tax monopoly" http://web.archive.org/web/20010222183353/http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010220/tc/microsoft_clarifies_exec_s_open-source_concerns_1.html -- StevenNewton

So, the difference as I read it is that with an open-source product you can charge for it if you want to, and can modify it (however slightly) and declare the modified product to be closed-source, whereas with the GPL you both can't charge for it and can't make derivatives that you can charge for either. Correct? -- AndyPierce

Almost. You're free to charge as much as you want for a piece of GPL'd software. But once you've distributed it you also have to make the source code available at no cost (or at most the cost of media), and agree that others may modify it to their hearts content, as long as they GPL the modifications. The way I read the GPL you could charge a hefty amount for the first distribution of the software, but after that there would be very little incentive for anyone to pay you for it, since they, or a third party, could just compile it from source.

No, the Linux kernel is also distributed under the GPL. Don't take my word for it, I'm just reading from the source to the kernel on my box -- get the source for yourself and read the licensing: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.2.tar.gz -- StevenNewton

Seems to me MS complaining about programmers giving away software is like a prostitute complaining about women who do not charge their partners for sex....

When we were making decisions about the licensing to adopt for OpenAdaptor, we looked carefully at GPL and then decided to use the freer BSD-style license. This license says that people are free to use the software in their own products, and they can choose whether or not to contribute their changes back to the community, and choose whether or not to make their products open source.

Our primary goal was to create a community around the software, encourage people to adopt it in large organizations, and especially to remove any barriers that might scare people away.

While it seems to me that the legal details aren't yet clear, GPL has the broad reputation of making anything it touches instantly freely distributable. We didn't want people to even have to pause and think about this issue, because that pause too often leads to AnalysisParalysis and the triumph of bureaucracy over getting things done.

Seems to me that if you really believe open source is the best way to build software, you wouldn't be concerned about someone trying to steal the base and build a closed source product on top of it. -- BillBarnett

Actually, depending on what you are doing and what business you make, GPL might be better than BSD in many ways; it avoids other businesses from making proprietary products from your software, unless you offer a separate commercial license to allow such thing.

Developing large OpenSource projects is not easy. The web is littered with open source abandonware from projects that got a bit too ambitious. Many people have come to rely on open source software only to see the communities that develop them fail. Good or bad OpenSourceManagement can make or break a project.

This is the case with any software, open source or not. But with software that is not open source, it is hidden so it is not known as much. Furthermore, if you do find an open source abandoned project, someone else might (or might not; you have freedom to choose!) make changes and add things.

CategoryDiscussion