I read something in one of the comments for an OSNews posting a couple weeks ago that sent me thinking. It wasn't an original or profound thought. In fact, it's a rather commonly-held opinion that happens to be quite misguided. It's an opinion summed up by the "open source = communist" meme that gets thrown around in thousands of flamewars all over the internet. In this essay, I will explore why this idea is wrong and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
Post a Comment
open source = communist
So you decided to write a long article because of a troll?
Anyway, the company that I'm contracting with and worked for 6 years ships linux on our embedded and non-embedded devices. I know we've saved tons of money from not having to pay licensing fees and have actually tweaked the kernel on occasion for some very specific things we wanted to do.
If you want to make money off of open source learn how to add value to the lower-level open source software stack that is already there. Keep your code proprietary if you want. We do.
Nice article, David. I can see you put a lot thought, time, and effort into it. Very good points, indeed.
But I can already see the anti-gpl trolls coming out:
Its not open source that communist, its the GPL that is.
Just making a prediction...
Westerners' horrific idea of communism is resulted from the constant propagandas. If you really know what communism is, you won't be so scared of it, because there is nothing to be afraid of, communism is simply concerned with improving the well being of the whole society, which is a good thing.
Plus, you shouldn't be sared of it, because it won't work anyways any the the shadow of human nature.
Communism claims that society is evolving, with some kind of historical inevitability, toward the common person having more freedom and power.
That actually is marxism, marxism described history as an inevitable process working in a comparable sense as Hegelian dialectic. Calling that communism obscures the fact that there are anarcho-communists and communist that think along the lines of marxism.
For some people it is as bad as confusing "hacker" and "cracker" 
.
It doesn't matter whether this is just a response to trolls. The fact is, there are many, *many* of those trolls and they're insanely annoying. Any efford to fight them is good.
Wasn't hugely impressed by the article starting out effectively saying "Either you agree or you don't understand economics dummy".
But millions of people are employed planting and harvesting, and the tractor will put them all out of business! And the cotton gin will put all those people picking the seeds out of cotton plants out of work! And mechanical looms will put all those weavers out of work! Oh the humanity!
They WERE put out of work, and things got VERY VERY hard until alternative industries came along to provide jobs.
This is a ludicrous comparison anyway. If you take money out of the software industry, salaries decrease, number of jobs decrease, and most importantly the incentive to actually join the industry starts to fade away. This is already happening, with people choosing to study subjects with better future prospects, software engineers shifting career, etc.
The article's author is right when he says that the total economy isn't going to notice this bleeding away of talent, but that doesn't mean there's no effect. If I magically removed all but 2 of the world's car designers then we'd start seeing a lot of very similar cars (Already do IMHO). Likewise if there is a large reduction in the number of people programming original code, and there are a lot less decent programmers around than people think, then innovation will actually slow down.
The open-source phenomenon (For licenses that allow redistribution) will actually REDUCE innovation. An effect which will be nicely masked by a vast number of slightly modified variations on available stock code.
If, for instance, I gave a class of English Literature students an assignment to write a play about a Scottish King, in an old English style I'd end up with unique plays. However if I also said they could insert as much Shakespeare as they like, and get full credit for the bard's words, how many variations on Macbeth would I get?
"For the sake of clarity, let's leave the failed experiment of Soviet "Communism" out of this for a moment and focus on the theoretical (and apparently impractical) ideas proposed by Marx and other early 20th century philosophers."
Marx was not a 20th century philosopher, looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx He died in 1883. Never lived a day in the 20th century.
Um... "Marx and other early 20th century philosophers." does not necessarily imply that Marx was alive during the 20th century; it just means some people with similar thoughts to him (see the word "other") lived in the 20th century. And even so, who the hell cares? Why do you feel the need to nit-pick over 17 years??? Geez...
Well it implies that that Marx lived in the 20th century because it says "and other", but the writer probably refers to Lenin, Trotsky, and alikes. I agree that it is a bit nitpicking .
Open Source itself is not equal to communism, however some of the prevalent OSI licenses are. That's a huge part of the problem. Most people equate the GPL and OSS, which is unfortunate.
The GPL, and it's little sibling, the LGPL are both communistic in approach and intent in the purest sense of the word. They not only engender a community based approach to software, (If you modify/use it, you must contribute your efforts back into the community), they also prevent a 3rd party from using derivative works as anything but GPL.
Other OSI licenses, are in fact very good alternatives. MIT/X11, BSD, and others benefit everyone, but do not have the clauses that make the Communism accusation so bloody accurate when applied to the GPL.
I'm speaking for myself, and for example, I use PostgreSQL, and have made commercial contributions on behalf of corporate users to PostgreSQL, whereas I avoid MySQL like the plague, for this very reason. I cannot risk the intolerance of the GPL license that applies to the MySQL client libraries.
This was one of the best pieces of journalism I've seen in a while. Some people have had doubts about the quality of this site's content lately. Obviously, there are good articles and bad ones, and they add up to a good quantity of content. It's easy enough to weed through the articles that suck.
I also think the author is dead on. The current software industry is unsustainable. Do you think that, in 20 years, people will be buying a new version of Windows and a new version of Office, because their computers from 2020 are too slow and don't have enough features?
Besides that, the author is right that consumer companies would rather deal with open source, free software than liscensed software. You spend less time overseeing your liscense count, your software can be tweaked in any way you need (for a price), and you get to actually work one on one with the people who develop the software you use, as opposed to some company writing some software they hope you'll like enough to buy.
Thgis is a well thought out, well concieved, and well written piece.
"The open-source phenomenon (For licenses that allow redistribution) will actually REDUCE innovation."
Hmm, I think you are confusing innovation and dividends
Yes open source allows dozens of project/distributions to be create with only limited changes, usually tailored to one goal or another. It's adaptation, here it increases distribution as these software can be distributed to more people who could not afford other software.
So instead of a handful of employees who have access to the sources code, and can innovate, now thousands or millions have. Will they innovate ? Probably not ... not all at least. But among them, some might have ideas.
Also, an example of good closed source developpement is the game industry. Competition exists therefore good games and innovation is coming...
So my point is innovation come from competition... even if open source would fail to create better products (which I don't believe), competition forces closed source developper to do even more. If closed source software was truly superior, they would not be afraid of open source.
I must say you took lots of words to say something so obvious.
Linux is not another unix, may be it's no longer developed by only pioneers, but there are still pioneers there, and the license makes it possible for pioneers to pick up at any time.
"Open source software has been a tremendous boon for the thousands of small and medium sized businesses that have been mostly shut out of the enterprise software markets, both as producers and consumers."
I haven't found this to be true. Microsoft is very competive in this arena with their Small Business Server Suite. Cheap and easy to setup, cheap and easy to maintain not to mention 9 times out of 10 a logical upgrade from existing small business systems.
--- "If you take money out of the software industry, salaries decrease, number of jobs decrease, and most importantly the incentive to actually join the industry starts to fade away. This is already happening, with people choosing to study subjects with better future prospects, software engineers shifting career, etc."
Wait... why is this necessarily a bad thing? What if all those workers and saleries going to some other new area results in some great economic boom?
Just like the industrial revolution. Had to suffer the pain to get the gain, but it was worth it in the end.
While there are some valid points raised, this diatribe largely misses the mark. The conclusion pretty much shows the author's cards:
Many people today who are fighting for intellectual property rules because they think it promotes innovation and progress may actually be actually hammering nails into innovation's coffin.
With conclusions like this, the author is saying that he does not believe in the notion of intellectual property -- proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the author has never owned any. Those who "are fighting for intellectual property rules" are doing so because they own intellectual property -- they are not "hammering nails into innovation's coffin" because they are the innovators. And, I hasten to add, plenty of open source developers also fight for intellectual property rules -- just look on LKML for the latest accusations that some new Linux-based gizmo violates the terms of the GPL by not providing source code...
Open source does not mean that we abolish the notion of intellectual property, and the author does an enormous disservice to open source by making that implication.
just a few days ago, the ceo of one of the 5 austrian mobile phone providers complained that the low tariffs are ruining his business and he had to sign off 200 people because of the low prices and that was bad for these people yadda yadda yadda.
i thought: what the hell does this guy want? 200 people unemployed is bad, hell yes. but there's 8 million austrians who can use their mobile phones at really low prices, a lot lower than 3 years ago. they spend less money on their mobile phone bills, that means less money for him, but also they have more money to spend on other stuff. and these 200 poor workers will find other jobs in these other sectors.
you can't reject capitalism when it's not working your way.
and it's the same with software. an office suite for 500€? come on! an operating system for 170€? yeah, of course. i see microsofts profit margin and i see that something is dead wrong. they suck away money that all the companies could put to good use for other stuff.
calling linux "communist" is just dumb. whoever thinks that, has absolutely no knowledge what communism was, what marxism was, probably not what a democracy is, a dictatorship and what capitalism means. these people are just throwing around with words that they don't understand. this may sound arrogant, but i, for one, have studied history.
regards,
christian
The idea that the GPL is communistic in any way is rediculous! Viral, maybe, but not communism.
The GPL is a way for software authors to protect their code FROM communistic ideals. It is a way to be sure ones code is kept in the software industries most extream example of capitolism: free and open source software.
Why are there still so many people that don't see the parallels between the current proprietary software industry and communist Russia? They want to be the sole producers. They will provide the goods, and the consumer will accept them. FOSS on the other hand allows anyone to participate. As in the capitolist economy, everyone has the oportunity to make great software and reap the benefits. We can all be producers and consumers. Code changes hands like money being invested and just like that money, has the oportunity to bring great returns in the form of additons and improvments from the rest of the community.
Communism: Everyone gets the same thing, want it or not.
Capitolism: You get out what you put in.
Think about it.
Also, an example of good closed source developpement is the game industry. Competition exists therefore good games and innovation is coming...
This is a terrible example. The games industry is currently living off pretty graphics and sequels to successful titles. There is practically zero innovation aside from in the field of graphics engines. Anything that is truly innovative, or not from certain genres, is sidelined as being too risky to develop.
Roll on the next first person shooter/driving game/god sim. Let's just keep chewing that cud instead of searching for greener grass.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the article, I just happen to think that sharing source code is pretty irrelevant. Ideas and algorithms are the only thing that needs to be open, IP for source code is perfectly justified. IP for algorithmics is not.
If you really know what communism is, you won't be so scared of it, because there is nothing to be afraid of, communism is simply concerned with improving the well being of the whole society, which is a good thing.
I don't think the fear is, "Oh, no! What if we end up in an ideal utopia?! That's sooooo scary!" The problem isn't what will happen if people succeed in making a perfect communistic society. The what has people scared are two basic problems with the "communist revolution":
A) Any "revolution" is going to scare people. People fear change, and often with good reason. Revolutions an civil wars are among the bloodiest and most brutal conflicts people get into. Likewise with economic revolutions; even when the end result of the revolution is a transition into a better situation, the transition itself is always messy.
B) When the revolution is done, you're most likely going to end up with a tyrannical government, or, at the very least, a terribly inefficient bureaucracy. That's pretty much just the way things work. Like you said, "it won't work anyways any the the shadow of human nature". "Ideals" which ignore human nature aren' harmless. The most monsterous of human actions are committed in persuit of such "ideals".
Both questions apply to the OSS debate. If the whole of software development were to go open source, the questions to be faced are A) How can we make the transition, and B) In what state does that leave the software industry?
Personally, I think the best solution is to maintain a world with both open source and closed source software. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and neither are, in themselves, a problem. What I really want to see is A) Open standards and B) a thoughtful review of the concept of "intellectual property" (perhaps a concept that doesn't fine 12 year olds millions for downloading a couple CD's or throw college kids in jail for downloading photoshop to learn how to use it)
"i see microsofts profit margin and i see that something is dead wrong. they suck away money that all the companies could put to good use for other stuff. "
Riddle me this Batman! Who or what made Microsoft what it is today? I will give you the answer...consumers like you and me. Want to talk expensive software? take a look at the licensing cost difference between NT and Novell circa early 1990's for roughly the same functionality and you will see why Microsoft is as big as it is today and why Novell and others went into obscurity. Novell and other companies chose to maintain the old expensive software lock in business model rather than compete head to head with Microsoft on price vs features/performance.
(Note I'm in the middle of reading the article. But I thought I should mention something)
David Adams: The financial/managerial class has its own value system, based mostly on the necessity to monetize the company's assets. Firms have a responsibility to maximize the return on their investors' money, so every company asset must be leveraged to its utmost. This means that if you have developed a program that can be sold for $1,000,000 to four people in the world or $100 to three million people, it is your solemn duty to keep the price at $1,000,000, even if that means that 2,999,996 people who need that software will have to go without. And at that price, you must keep your company knowledge absolutely secret, advancing the state of the art be damned.
Actually... In that case most intelligent business people would go the other way. You know... 4 x $1,000,000 = $4,000,000 vs 3,000,000 x $100 = $300,000,000. That's a $296,000,000 difference.
Err:But here you switched to rentability question... Of course, game industry is here to make money ... of course, Doom3, Half-life 2, Warcraft3 are sequels. Some sells millions of copy so may be not your kind of game, but there is a public for it and that's all it matters. But if you want to argue about "real" innovation, what is innovation for you ?? give us an example of (recent) software innovation ... Windows did not innovate in the last 10 years...assuming win95 was innovation (!!), except for eye candy.
Close source developpement is not the necessary mean to innovate. Possible sure, necessary no.
"i see microsofts profit margin and i see that something is dead wrong. they suck away money that all the companies could put to good use for other stuff."
"Riddle me this Batman! Who or what made Microsoft what it is today? I will give you the answer...consumers like you and me. Want to talk expensive software? take a look at the licensing cost difference between NT and Novell circa early 1990's for roughly the same functionality and you will see why Microsoft is as big as it is today and why Novell and others went into obscurity. Novell and other companies chose to maintain the old expensive software lock in business model rather than compete head to head with Microsoft on price vs features/performance."[/i]
You just defeated your own argument. Whats different between MS's reluctance to leave the old system of high profit margins and lock-in behind and that Novell and others previously? If it was the wrong choice then, why is it not now?
well, that's probably true. and yeah, i have an original win95, win98 cd and xp home that was bundled with my laptop at home. it's also my money, pal. :-)
but i didn't talk about history. i talked about the situation today. microsoft earns unbelievably much money with their monopoly on windows and office. and this situation will change. change is just natural.
btw: great article, maybe a bit long, but very well thought out!
regards,
christian
I suggest if we want to understand human nature we take a hard long look at psychology. It shows us how humans behave and why the behave the way they do.
When we think about this on not so much an elementary level we find that most people behave according to their environment and past experiences and knowledge/memories.
Most people will behave in the socially accepted appropriate manner for any situation. If it is socially acceptable to spit on the homeless they will not feel bad or look down on other doing it. They might even partake themselves.
There were experiments that show that over 60% of the population will do what they are told by authority. If that authority is not just and honorable the actions of their population might become just as corrupt. Nazi Germany comes to mind.
There are experiments that show that some people will be cruel to lifeforms they consider lesser than themselves, or have come to believe they belong to a subordinate group, including other humans. Slavery.
All of these actions depend on the environment and beliefs held by their society, not by their education, etc.
Then when we look at social psychology we find that the Fundamental Attribution Error says that society often blames the individual for their situation (such as being homeless/jobless) when society is often responsible for creating the environment that lead them to these problems.
So when we put it all together we find that a lot of these problems are caused by capitalism, or the scarcity of resources, at a fundamental level. And would be remedied by a more equal distribution of wealth and a caring society that would not allow any individual to do without.
I believe that a society can be transformed/constructed into one that encourages everyone to participate and be productive in an entertaining manner. With a little creative thought our jobs could either be automated or made into something that more closely resembles play. And with a little care and compassion for your fellow citizen you will find that there are enough products for everyone to have what they need and most of what they want. IP can be duplicated to an extent with modern technology that everyone can have every song, movie and book ever created.
deoxy.org/endwork.htm
Another thing to consider is how much time (the most valuable limited resource we have) is wasted in lines at the store, making trips to the bank, paying bills, taxes, counting change, waiting in rush hour traffic, etc. All this time, collectively, could be put to more productive means if we did away with currency. But then society might not be as fair as it is today where CEOs are driving around in $100k vehicles and the average physicist or computer scientist has trouble finding a job in their field.
You just defeated your own argument. Whats different between MS's reluctance to leave the old system of high profit margins and lock-in behind and that Novell and others previously? If it was the wrong choice then, why is it not now?
1. Microsfot has little to no competetion
2. Were talking tens of thousands vs hundreds of dollars. Modern Example: compair Oracle Database software lock-in vs Microsoft SQL Server Lock-in for a medium sized database.
I own MS Office 2003 Small business version and i feel it was worth every cent of the $200 i payed for it. I am not trying to defend Microsofts pricing schemes $500 for the Professional version seems kind of steep until you analyze what you are getting. I didn't need all the application in professional so i opted for Small business version.
"I believe that a society can be transformed/constructed into one that encourages everyone to participate and be productive in an entertaining manner. With a little creative thought our jobs could either be automated or made into something that more closely resembles play. And with a little care and compassion for your fellow citizen you will find that there are enough products for everyone to have what they need and most of what they want. IP can be duplicated to an extent with modern technology that everyone can have every song, movie and book ever created."
Great idea! to bad its based on the assumtion that everyone will contribute in an equal manner and is of equal ability. Hence the reason true Socialism on the large scale doesn't work. Hence the reason for imperfect capitalism where everyone more or less has an equal opourtunity to succeed or fail. It is at this level where OSS will be put to the litmous test will it suceed becasue it is functionally better then competing products? or becasue it is free(as in speech).
"It is at this level where OSS will be put to the litmous test will it suceed becasue it is functionally better then competing products? or becasue it is free(as in speech)."
Who says its either or?
Why not both
1. Microsfot has little to no competetion
Thats a matter of debate actually, and depends on the particular market and market segment. Even in segments where they don't, that cannot last forever.
2. Were talking tens of thousands vs hundreds of dollars. Modern Example: compair Oracle Database software lock-in vs Microsoft SQL Server Lock-in for a medium sized database.
When you are competing with free, hundreds may as well be tens of thousands. 
Fact is, actual amounts don't matter. All that matters is that the cost of software is being artificially inflated. Thats what Novell and others did then giving MS their "in", thats what MS is doing now. How long until FOSS or cheaper competitors take that "in"?
I own MS Office 2003 Small business version and i feel it was worth every cent of the $200 i payed for it.
And at one time many corporations probably felt the same way about their $10,000 dollar software too.
Would you feel the same way if others where selling equivilent software for $19.95? Or gving it away as a free download? Software is nothing. It has no intrinsic value simply by existing like material goods do. It costs nothing to reproduce. The only value that a program has is the value we artificaly assign it.
"...the author is saying that he does not believe in the notion of intellectual property -- proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the author has never owned any."
How come I keep hearing this? Is it truly inconceivable to people (@sun.com, heh heh) that an artist, programmer, singer, etc. with worthwhile IP might not think they have the right to a monopoly? What, frankly, do the two have to do with each other? One is a moral question, the other is a career. If all artists thought they had a right to IP, it would more likely indicate bias than wisdom: do they agree so completely about things that *aren't* in their best interest?
I am an information anarchist because I can't find a philosophical basis for intellectual property claims, and because I don't believe in tacit consent. Therefore, I deny that I've ever given up my right to do whatever I want with any idea, no matter how it gets into my head. How does my being a programmer and having what the U.S. considers "IP" affect my thinking? It shouldn't, and it doesn't.
Yes, I understand this would destroy the GPL too. Whoopee. I don't make moral decisions based on what I would *like* the outcome to be. I further deny that government has any business 'promoting' the economy. How does that protect my rights? Do I have a right to live in a prosperous country? A right to stable grocery prices? All we've accomplished is a nation full of families that don't have even one month's spare living expenses in the bank.
"even enforces, sharing rather than hoarding"
could be
even promotes, stealing rather than producing
Try reading a little Ayn Rand. May I suggest the Voice of Reason. Most peoples heads have been so filled with this altrusistic socialist prattle for so many years now that they are close to being willing to slit the wrists of thier fellow men to help in the world population problem.
Is it true that the human brain is the most powerful neural network in the world?
When put in the proper environment, one that is mentally healthy and educates, the human brain writes its own software that makes it extremely valuable to society because of its ability to innovate. So how can it be a problem to have access to too many of these supercomputers?
Or is the value of a supercomputer not worth the cost of shelter, food, education, supplies and medical care to take care of a human? Is it cheaper to build machines that outthink people? And when it becomes cheaper should we just do away with this world population problem because its not economicly viable?
Yes, bring on the Ayn Rand... I want to hear some examples.
"And at one time many corporations probably felt the same way about their $10,000 dollar software too.
Would you feel the same way if others where selling equivilent software for $19.95? Or gving it away as a free download? Software is nothing. It has no intrinsic value simply by existing like material goods do. It costs nothing to reproduce. The only value that a program has is the value we artificaly assign it."
Devon, you're so hopelessly confused that I almost don't have the heart to respond, but here goes.
Who the hell are you to DECIDE whether that $10,000 piece of software that that company bought with their OWN MONEY was "worth it"? Why in the hell else would they buy it? Can't you even fathom for a second that people and businesses are not lemmings that need to be "rescued" from "artificially inflated" prices? They BOUGHT IT. They paid the MONEY. Because it saves them TIME and MONEY and that makes them more efficient which means they will earn MORE MONEY. It's so goddamn simple. A business DOESN'T BUY THINGS THAT COST MORE THAN THEY WILL EVER EARN. You don't run a business this way.
SOFTWARE is TIME. And TIME is MONEY. Time has value--tangible, real, value. Businesses thirty years ago bought billing and tracking computer systems because it's CHEAPER than DOING IT BY HAND. That's the whole point of every software purchase--it enables business to be faster and more efficient.
Do you have any idea what the world was like before software? People did business with paper, telephones, checks, and signatures! How barbaric! Payroll, taxes, banking, financial markets--all done with paper! Computers have absolutely REVOLUTIONIZED business. Don't think for a second that software purchases are to make managers or CEOs feel better. Or to make secretaries feel self important or give their wrists a good workout.
Software has VALUE.
Why in the hell else would we be having this discussion!!??
The notion that OSS is anti-capitalist (and therefore communist? strange logic!) is completely bogus. OSS exists because there is a limited market for software that people or companies will actually pay for, but there is a lot of production capacity out there in the form of talent and ideas. Those two facts along with the ability to collaborate with people pratically anywhere makes it happen.
And at one time many corporations probably felt the same way about their $10,000 dollar software too.
I am sure they did LOL!
Would you feel the same way if others where selling equivilent software for $19.95? Or gving it away as a free download?
I predict Microsoft would compete by creating a better product or a better value. Seriously what better motivation to create something better than MS Office then to make some cash doing it? I use postfix and think it is the best Open Source mail programs in existence. What do you think would make it as good as MS exchange faster, a "Good job" and a thanks for the free stuff! to Wietse Venema or a two million dollar venture capital investment into Wietse's work.(Wietse if i had the money i would hook you up!
Software is nothing. It has no intrinsic value simply by existing like material goods do. It costs nothing to reproduce. The only value that a program has is the value we artificaly assign it.
Well you discount the wages to coders, R&D, Marketing and god knows what else that goes into creating something like MS Office. Granted i am sure that MS turns a profit on the investment shortly after they release a software product such as Office. However I don't resent Microsoft for making money like many people here seem to do.
"even enforces, sharing rather than hoarding"
could be
even promotes, stealing rather than producing
The problem is that he was reffering to information and ideas. Intangables that can be shared without loss and to which you cannot apply the principals and morals of material goods.
Besides, the author has chosen to share his code. How dare you presume to deny him his intellectual property rights!
I predict Microsoft would compete by creating a better product or a better value.
Exactly, because you can't inflate the value of software like that, as you yourself pointed out with the Novell example above. Thats really all I was saying.
Seriously what better motivation to create something better than MS Office then to make some cash doing it? I use postfix and think it is the best Open Source mail programs in existence. What do you think would make it as good as MS exchange faster, a "Good job" and a thanks for the free stuff! to Wietse Venema or a two million dollar venture capital investment into Wietse's work.(Wietse if i had the money i would hook you up!
Wether or not software ends up being free or just cheaper is imaterial to the discussion. The point is that there IS somthing wrong with MS's masive profits, and the rebuttle you posted served only to disprove itself.
Software is nothing. It has no intrinsic value simply by existing like material goods do. It costs nothing to reproduce. The only value that a program has is the value we artificaly assign it.
Well you discount the wages to coders, R&D, Marketing and god knows what else that goes into creating something like MS Office. Granted i am sure that MS turns a profit on the investment shortly after they release a software product such as Office. However I don't resent Microsoft for making money like many people here seem to do.
Oh of course to develope the software costs money, but the problem is that MS grossly inflates prices beyond the cost of development and a modest profit. Also, development costs have nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the software itself. The software itself is mearly information. The developer of a program can choose to share it for free, or for a cost, but the cost you pay is nothing more then the cost of providing it to you and/or a license fee to make use of their intellectual property.
If open source and the GPL is communism, then communism is not that bad.
Eventhough the author tries to show both sides of the coin, he unfortunately misses the 'metal' itself. The programmers that actually produce the OSS apps.
No one denies the benefits of using OSS. However, for one to get something for free, usually another has to give something for free. And that's where the current OSS equation breaks. OSS developers are percieved (and actually are) by the current economy as free labor. From the devs point of view, some of their labor goes for idealism, for the community for and the advancement of technology/knowledge in general. That's a good thing, but it's not something they can go to the grocery with.
For the equation to hold firm, the beneficiaries need to give something back. And that usually doesn't happen. Everyone enjoy using software for free, but when talks about contributing/paying back arise, then all the excuses in the world are being used. For the equation to hold, people should have a MORAL. And as far as i can tell, most of them (us?) don't. And that's very unfortunate. It just won't hold, and i say it with much grief.
For example, I've been leading more than one OSS project (all VERY successfull, albeit small in scope) with hundreds of thousands of users. On some i had donations links. Let me tell you something. I got $NULL, zero, zilch, nothing. Not even a single $. and I desperately needed some, as i was unemployed for more than a year (I do have a proper job now though, pretty demanding, but nevertheless a good one).
That's why i don't think it can hold for long. Eventhough i (and many more) will continue to write OSS applications for the reasons stated above, the occupation of programming is going to loose it's attractiveness (which is from the financial point of view usually), less programmers will walk the earth, hence, less OSS apps will be written, and software companies will rule the earth again. It would be interesting to see how this overshoot effect will develop.
But one thing i can say: The current equation can't hold, as it's a terribly unbalanced one.
On the subject of Postfix, someone said:
What do you think would make it as good as MS exchange faster, a "Good job" and a thanks for the free stuff! to Wietse Venema or a two million dollar venture capital investment into Wietse's work.(Wietse if i had the money i would hook you up!
I've got news for you: go google for "IBM Secure Vmailer".
I am an information anarchist because I can't find a philosophical basis for intellectual property claims
Do you agree that the government should have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing (for limited times) to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries? If you disagree that government should have that power, fine; but recognize that you are diasgreeing with Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution -- not to mention the British Common Law from which it was derived. I think that most people -- and probably even most people in the open source movement -- are not interested in a constitutional amendment to repeal intellectual property rights. My point is that you (and others like you) do the open source movement terrible harm by associating your extremist views with it...
This is slightly off topic but...
One thing that's bugged me about donating money to smaller open source projects is the lack of information you get back.
I've donated money to a number of projects and get an email back saying 'thanks' about 20% of the time. And that's it.
You cannot get information about how much money others have donated, about how the money is being spent (living costs or materials/time etc), how it's being invested etc.
It's important to me that I get some feedback, for purely selfish reasons. I would like to invest in the one that has the most investor interest so the cumulative money is more likely to guarantee the continued interest of the developers. Often there are a number of projects with the same focus, and it really does not matter to me which succeeds, I only want a good result. And while money alone cannot create good software, a little research shows that it is a potent motivator for OSS programmers.
Most private companies will provide much more information on their finances than any sourceforge project. I appreciate that most projects will not have an accountant, but I would still appreciate *some* information.
The GPL is a way for software authors to protect their code FROM communistic ideals. It is a way to be sure ones code is kept in the software industries most extream example of capitolism: free and open source software.
No, it's a way to ensure *someone else's* code is *made open source*. The BSD (or equivalent) license will keep code available no matter who uses it.
The GPL isn't about *your* source code, it's about *their* source code. That's the whole point of it - to create *more* open code, not preserve code that's already open.
Communism gets it name from everything being owned together, or by none at all if you wish. Material property is abolished. This is the essence of communism, not the historical materialism that David Adams makes a scornful recapitulation of.
Capitalism is essentially about amassing capital, i.e. property, and for this to be possible strong property rights are necessary. The aggressive strengthening of copyright and patent laws we are seeing in the US as well as in Europe is capitalism trying to strengthen its position in the information sector - companies and capitalists wish to be able to amass information in the same way as they can amass material property.
Free Software is the abolition of intellectual property (although of course it is manifested through laws supposed to uphold it). Anyway, software is shared in very much the same way as normal property would be in a communist state. Competition is replaced by cooperation, and innovation will thrive. And we all know it does, this is not a utopian dream, it is right there on your desk, life-controlling governments not included.
Obviously, in a otherwise capitalist economy, material areas will still be run in a capitalist fashion, and that is the real reason that businesses work with open source, i.e. Red Hat doesn't produce a linux distribution, it produces the service of making computers work with linux on them. This way free software can still work in the capitalist system, and this is obviously good because the life-controlling governmental power of capitalism is put to good use, providing the world with good software for free.
I think the really interesting question is what it would take to apply Free Software ideals to new areas, instead of doing it the other way around. Projects like wikipedia and filesharing is pushing the border, OpenCores is crossing it. What is next?
In fact, one of the best I've ever read on osnews, as far as I can remember.
Thank you!
@ avih:
I'm sorry about the lack of finacial support. On the other hand, someone may have used one of your projects, decided to contribute, too, and you'll be using his project one day.
Concerning the unbalanced equation: I had a similar thought when I read about an institution saying that Open Source saved the organization lots of dollars, but wasn't willing to provide their existing old but ported Unix application back to the community as Open Source. If I remember correcty, it was a canadian institution about weather forecasting.
However, if one day developers will become a 'scarce' good, prices (and earnings) will rise again, and new people will learn coding. That is meant by the expression 'invisible hand'. On some markets, it actually works.
Suppose Stallman had put off the creation of GCC and gone with a BSD licensed compiler available at the time (assuming there was one). This isn't that far fetched BTW, he never sat down and wrote a windowing system, he went with X which is licensed almost identically to BSD. When GCC first become popular it was a shock that a free C compiler was available. People downloaded (or more commonly got Stallman to send them a tape) it and honestly didn't think it would work. When they found it wasn't all that bad they made modifications and sent them back to Stallman. To be honest there wasn't a lot of this going on until people started to realise how easy it was to port GCC. All of a sudden a company could make their own UNIX clone to go with their custom hardware. There was a real market for UNIX clones and if your hardware was good you could make a lot of money. So people would port GCC to their hardware and sell it. If GCC had really been BCC then there is no way those companies would have contributed their port back to Stallman. They would have simply compiled a binary and put it in their distribution. If someone asked for the source code they'd say "oh, it's just BCC with proprietory modifications" and no, you can't have the source code to those modifications. But because supplying source code (or distributing anything) was such an effort back then it made sense to make Stallman do all the distribution. So you just contribute your changes to GCC back to Stallman and if anyone wanted the source code with your changes you'd just point at him. When someone would send their tape to Stallman he'd pack it with not only GCC but GNU Emacs and all the other GNU source code. Which of course people would make their own changes to and possibily contribute back to Stallman. So filling this market need of a free C compiler really exposed a lot of people to the GNU project and it was possible because Stallman wrote GCC instead of using some BCC that may have been available.
possibly a more relevant discussion is to consider what islamic societies and doctrines make of the economics (or lack thereof) of open source "works". many people might be surprised at how similar free-market liberal christian-democratic (in the european sense) economics is to islamic economics and jurisprudence on intellectual property.
"The problem is that he was reffering to information and ideas. Intangables that can be shared without loss and to which you cannot apply the principals and morals of material goods.
Besides, the author has chosen to share his code. How dare you presume to deny him his intellectual property rights!"
First off Mr. Adams used the word enforce in relation to sharing. That doesn't sound like choice to me.
Secondly an idea is very tangible if it wasn't poeple wouldn't pay for it. A block of wood with out an idea is a stick. With an idea it can become a piece of valued art or a custom peice of furniture. If that peice of furniture is unique enough in function then the design (idea) can be patented.
In the world today the new wood is 0 and 1's, bits and bytes with out ideas software is just ether.
Since material goods are of finite quantities on this planet, I would think that people who are truly for the common man would be all for the protection of ideas through intellectual property rights since this is about the easiest and fastest way for a common man to empower himself.
Of course some one should be able to share his idea with the world for what ever value he chooses to place on it. But sharing and enforce are two words that just shouldn't be used together.
Open source is a logical evolution of a world dominated by closed source software. It allows individuals and companies to create new products faster, most significant advances in civilization have happend through group co-operation (the development of the computer and the internet, the human genome project). Group co-operation is the way nature works best, sure, it is possible for, say, an Eddison or a Henry Ford to succeed, but with concepts like open source, many more people can develop new applications.
As far as some closed source companies like Microsoft complaining, I think that Microsoft is being hypocritical as they achieved world domination in the browser wars by giving a software application away for free (Internet Explorer), so they have absoloutliy no credibility in saying that free software is bad. (they have used that tactic themselves). As far as giving the source code away, well, nothing is stopping Bill Gates from giving his software away (except Bill Gates), it should be up to the software creators/owners to give it away under any lisence arrangement they feel is suitable.
If GCC had really been BCC then there is no way those companies would have contributed their port back to Stallman.
Why not ? Other companies (eg: Apple) contribute back modified BSD-licensed code.
So filling this market need of a free C compiler really exposed a lot of people to the GNU project and it was possible because Stallman wrote GCC instead of using some BCC that may have been available.
You have failed to show any causal link between GCC being GPLed and not BSD-licensed, and people being exposed to open source software.
Yeah, now that it's hip and groovy. Around the time GCC was written it was common practice to take BSD code and make a proprietory fork. Look at the UNIX history tree.
The causal link between GPL vs BSD and people being exposed to free software (note, there was no freakin' "open source") is pretty blatant, if you asked for the GCC source code you got the entire GNU collection.
Yeah, now that it's hip and groovy. Around the time GCC was written it was common practice to take BSD code and make a proprietory fork. Look at the UNIX history tree.
Most proprietry unixes had (and have) their own compilers.
The causal link between GPL vs BSD and people being exposed to free software (note, there was no freakin' "open source") [...]
I'm calling it "open source" to avoid confusion between with "free" as most people understand it and "free" as open source advocates use it.
[...] is pretty blatant, if you asked for the GCC source code you got the entire GNU collection.
I think you missed my point. What's the difference between getting a tape full of GPLed software and a tape full of BSD-licensed software ?
Which is better. Research and development conducted in a closed proprietary environment or an open peer reviewed academic environment. If its the former than why do so many Corporations farm out their R&D to Universities?
Open source is good, but you don't want to have it take up too much of the industry. Keep in mind that spending stimulates the economy. Corporations buying software, like spending and investing during a recession, is a good thing. It may not seem like a good thing to them or at that time, but it helps to stimulate the economy which mill lead to more people having money to buy there products etc.
In my opinion opesource is good for keeping companies from selling their product at an over inflated price and to keep the industry innovation. From an economic point of view, it's better to have many customers at a lower price than a few at a higher price even if you make the same ammount of money. 10 customers pay $100 is better than 1 paying $1000. Money changing hands is vital to a healthy economy.
First off Mr. Adams used the word enforce in relation to sharing. That doesn't sound like choice to me.
It certainly is! You think that IP owners don't have a right to enforce they're choices on how their IP is licensed? It is entirely their choice wether to enforce it or not.
Secondly an idea is very tangible if it wasn't poeple wouldn't pay for it. A block of wood with out an idea is a stick. With an idea it can become a piece of valued art or a custom peice of furniture. If that peice of furniture is unique enough in function then the design (idea) can be patented.
An idea is completely intangable. Its rediculus to state otherwise. For instance, if I have an idea for a new type of encryption algorithm, what exactly is that idea made of? To be tangible, it must be some form of matter. What would that be? Enlighten me please!
Software is no more tangible then an idea.
In the world today the new wood is 0 and 1's, bits and bytes with out ideas software is just ether.
A very appropriate analogy, as ether in the context you used it in is a non-existant substance. Since when did the concepts of 1 or 0 become tangible? What form of matter is software made from?
Since material goods are of finite quantities on this planet, I would think that people who are truly for the common man would be all for the protection of ideas through intellectual property rights since this is about the easiest and fastest way for a common man to empower himself.
So would I. I guess then that you do not consider yourself a common man? You seem to quite vigorously trample on those rights.
Of course some one should be able to share his idea with the world for what ever value he chooses to place on it. But sharing and enforce are two words that just shouldn't be used together.
Your view of mankind is far too ideal. Im afraid this moral utopia where IP rights need not be enforced does not exist. You may not like enforcment of IP rights, but the right to enforce them exists for a reason, and the nature of mankind leaves little chance that this will ever change.
Child in Africa needs food, education and health. AND a free OS AND access to information. Lot of those countries are very very rich but also very very much exploited by a few who keep their monopoly - sounds familiar?
Firms have a responsibility to maximize the return on their investors' money, so every company asset must be leveraged to its utmost. This means that if you have developed a program that can be sold for $1,000,000 to four people in the world or $100 to three million people, it is your solemn duty to keep the price at $1,000,000, even if that means that 2,999,996 people who need that software will have to go without.
Well, first if all, for that example to work, it should be $1 (not $100) to three million people. Change it.
Secondly, that example is wrong: maximizing return on investment means selling a program for $1M to four people AND for $1 to 3 million people, making:
$4,000,000 + $3,000,000 = $7,000,000
How one can do that? Well, get to American business school to learn that.
Want examples? Here they are: Microsoft Windows XP Home for $50 (OEM) and XP Pro for $150 (OEM).
More? Red Hat Advanced Linux Server for $1,500/year and Red Hat Workstation for $300/year.
Even more? A car with manual and stereo or same car with automatic and CD for $2,000 more (hint: in many cars auto and stick have same production cost, or auto even cheaper).
These all are examples of slight variation of the same product targeting different customer groups.
Oh, yes, almost forgot: Red Hat Linux for $14,000/year for really rich folks who could afford IBM mainframe to run it on.:)
See, it is easy: you charge every customer as much as he/she can pay. Not more, but not less. This is business. The one the author has very naive understanding of.
++++++++++
As for other observations in the article, they are mostly good and interesting. For example, the observation of Socialism built on promise of Communism and ended as a corrupted state governed by the 'servants of the people.'
Now, ask yourself where did you heard about 'stewards' and 'gentle dicators.' Oh, right: in relation to Linux, Linux kernel, OpenSource projects.
Thes 'stewards' promise eternal happines of working for community. They are paid, directly or indirectly, by for profit corporations. They preach volunteerism but sure don't make money flipping burgers after volunteer work promoting OpenSource.
It smells very much like Soviet Union and OpenSource will end like it did.
Do not expect free society at the end: just 'stewards' selling themselves to the higher bidder and trying to take biggest piece of community pie with them.
based on the article's title. I ve searched and read the following:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx
i am wondering why dont microsoft migrate all BSD servers running hotmail services to Win2003 mainframe?
further, if META researches have clear proofs about prices as comparing between linux and microsoft servers, that means linux is just for students and IT knownledgable users only. Becoz if they use linux with a service like RedHat/ Suse then it costs them than microsoft does?
just few lines about this comparission.
cheers
I think all that Open Source has done is make it clear that different business models are required. The article seems to me to stay within the old paradigm.
The writing on the wall says SERVICES loud and clear. IBM knows it (and is profiting big time from this knowledge) and you can bet that Microsoft knows it. When Microsoft has milked the last dollar out of being "just" a software company they will wield their mighty organization towards Services. .Net is the beginning of it...
Thank you for your article, I very much enjoyed it. I thought I myself had a broad vision about the subject but you clearly showed me more depth.
I agree with this article 100%. Free software makes things more efficient. And its good to have both free and proprietary software to keep our economic bubble inflated. IMO, it really sucks when our bubbles burst.
The best thing for the economy would be to cooperate. Be quiet about the benefits of open source when you talk to other countries around the world and recommend the most expensive commercial stuff. Then only use the free stuff internally or give away the proprietary stuff / allow rampant piracy to improve your economy. Use intense propoganda and rhetoric to convince everyone around the world how horribly insecure the free/oss stuff is and how good the expensive stuff is. Its really that simple. Wanna work together? I'll endorse an agreement like that where us here in the USA all get free CDs of MS XP/Longhorn/Office and OSX in the mail like AOL with a EULA that says we can use it if we agree not to tell anyone outside the country about our little secrets.
"This means that if you have developed a program that can be sold for $1,000,000 to four people in the world or $100 to three million people, it is your solemn duty to keep the price at $1,000,000..."
Huh? So it's preferable to earn $4 Million vs $300 Million?
I don't know why people think it's not possible to sell free software...
AFAIK, you could ask for some money to do the developing (just like it is done today), and after it done, you would just give it with the source code and all. Just like most softwares are made today, except that the source code would be avaliable to the community.
Victor.
1. price falls to marginal cost, 0 for good software after distribution.
2. with monopoly -istic power, Quantity finally sold falls to (n-1)/n of what it otherwise would, ie 1/2 for a monopoly.
I don't know why people think it's not possible to sell free software...
Because your first customer can turn around and give away - or even resell - your product to anyone and everyone.
AFAIK, you could ask for some money to do the developing (just like it is done today), [...]
This is selling a *service* (your programming skills), not the software.
[...] and after it done, you would just give it with the source code and all. Just like most softwares are made today, except that the source code would be avaliable to the community.
So how do you make money when all of your customers only need to purchase a single copy of your software ?
Hmm, well. I find it funny how piracy is mostly left alone. An analysis on why piracy happens would be one which fits right in this subject and i think, will add to the discussion.
Some people in the FLOSS camp argue that piracy is stopping open source adoption. Which could be one of the reasons why they're against piracy.
<< [...]
Often these conflicts do not bump up against each other too much. The software producers need an environment in which they can create software (they need to be paid, be provided with desks, computers, etc) and the managers need the producers to have a product to sell. It's a symbiotic relationship. But engineers often bristle at management's lack of interest in funding inventive new research and instead packing useless bells and whistles into the existing products because sales and marketing think it will help make more money. And managers often decry programmers' love of technology for technology's sake and seeming lack of interest in the financial well-being of the firm
[...]
>> Brilliant, the relation between the *NTJ and the *NTP described.
<< This is a ludicrous comparison anyway. If you take money out of the software industry, salaries decrease, number of jobs decrease, and most importantly the incentive to actually join the industry starts to fade away. This is already happening, with people choosing to study subjects with better future prospects, software engineers shifting career, etc.
>> I agree, but the world doesn't end there. Did the world end during the industrial revolution? Not during any revolution. The article emphatised that point.
<< The open-source phenomenon (For licenses that allow redistribution) will actually REDUCE innovation.
>> You have not argumented why. So i ask you: Why?
<< Well it implies that that Marx lived in the 20th century because it says "and other", but the writer probably refers to Lenin, Trotsky, and alikes. I agree that it is a bit nitpicking .
>> No it ain't nitpicking if you dig futher into the subject. Which arguable is related to the subject (Stallman got inspiration from Kant IIRC).
Those you name were all "late" ''anarchism'' (rather more "authorian anarchism" or "state communism") philosophers. The philosophy of anarchism on which communism and marxism are based on started in the age of Enlightenment, far before the 20th century. Immanuel Kant was one of the important people who influenced the movement in the early stages. In Europe. You can find influences from that in important, early American philosophers and other important people. Like Jefferson and Twain for example. There's some fine history on this on websites like Wikipedia for example.
<< (If you modify/use it, you must contribute your efforts back into the community)
>> Nope. If you modify or use a GPL application you don't have to contribute your efforts back: if you don't distribute your binary you don't have to distribute your source. This opens the possibility to get sourcecode, hire a developer, and keep the source in-house. That is, if that software benefits your business. Hence what you state ain't a proposition. The GPL or any decent article about it explaining it will explain this more in depth.
<< Close source developpement is not the necessary mean to innovate. Possible sure, necessary no.
Someone mentioned games in that thread. Well, the entertainment industry is not necessary ''meant'' to innovate either. Look at movies, and you see various old recipes used for years if not decenia. The standard hero-movie goes like this: Main character male, strong and reasonably intelligent. He has a quest, a target. Then there's the female character who is beautiful. She aids the main character, fills in an important piece of the puzzle, or in fantasy movies she's gonna get rescued. Then there's the evil bastard as enemy who does things we don't accept in our society. The target involves his defeatment. That's just one of the many recipes of the average thriller or police movie. If you check out fantasy, western or whatever you like you'll find out similar. You're even able to find similarities in various genres. As example i find the Fifth Element and The Matrix good ones in this case, cause it fits in perfect and people tend to have seen these, but there are many other ones and one who has seen movies the past years is able to recognize that recipe in.
If you look at a random movie and analyze aspects like this, and you have seen quite some movies, you have a high chance ending up with a deja vu. Point is: many people don't see it from such point of view, and it doesn't bore or bother them! When it does to the masses, new recipes are found out. Repeat. Repeat. Yeah there are movies which are different from the standard concept. For example slightly, or just very different while it is alike on other layers. When you look at movies the past 20 years you'll notice some which are highly respected and different than the status quo, and some which started a whole new trend. Those movies aren't called "Virus". In the game industry you can notice that too. Here's one obvious example: "Dune 2". RTS games started from Dune 2 or maybe even a predecessor (afaik Dune 2 was the one which started this genre). Now, on that concept lots of games are based on. And lots of games are based on the concept of FPS. It sells. The similarities between various games of the same genre sell. Same or similar subject sells. Same or similar interface sells. If the interface is totally different, well, see the criticism on GIMP and Blender.
<< ...the author is saying that he does not believe in the notion of intellectual property -- proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the author has never owned any.
>> Excuse me but i find this extremely funny because when i ignore the definition of IP and read it literal you are saying that the author doesn't have brains! Intellectual property is what's in your brains. Knowledge. Everything else is artificial. Who says you "own" something when i copied it? The copier "owns" it too then in the literal sense of the word. It is just that the law doesn't agree.
The GPL was a reaction to these very laws. Stallman understood that a more liberal public domain or public domain-like system wouldn't work because he experienced that before proprietary software flourished.
But what i am wondering about: how do you respect the jobs of those who pirate your software, or about anyone? What do they get back from the society except money? You get IP _and_ money but the housekeeper gets only money. From that point of view IP is an addition afaik.
<< AFAIK, you could ask for some money to do the developing (just like it is done today), and after it done, you would just give it with the sou