“The Open Code Market (OCM) is both an open market for code, as well as a market for open code. However, it aims mainly to become a free market for software, as well as a market for Free Software. The OCM introduces into the Free/Open Source movement an economic incentive, to help align the priorities of Free/Open Source developers with those of the end users.” Read the article here.
The Open Code Market
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
So, the software is put up for bid so anyone, anywhere can bid on it. As if outsourcing work wasn’t bad enough this will make it impossible for someone in an economy that demands more income to compete. Not to mention, why would I want to develop free software I don’t care about outside of work. This would be like having 2 jobs. Would it be nice to make some money off of free software I have helped develop? Sure, but that isn’t why I make it in the first place.
After reading the article, it just seems like an idea no sane person would want to be a part of. I mean, who would pay for software that is GPL’d? Is it a violation taking someone else’s software in the market, adding it to your software and selling it to a client?
The idea is understandable. Create an environment where people can request an idea and their wallet does the bidding to see if someone wants to do it, but there are already many companies that do this. And if a business has to pay for the software, they are going to want ownership. What would the CEO say if the CTO put up the idea of getting software developed that we pay for that is then made available to everyone else after we get it?
Good luck.
The idea is great – just think in a smaller scale at the beginning.
For example, a portion of users and reviewers of The GIMP often request a change in the interface design. Let there be 100 or 200 people worldwide willing to spend 20 dollars each for a patch which makes a single window interface a compile-time option. I don’t know if there’s somebody willing to write this for 2000-4000 Dollars but I guess there is – maybe even somebody already involved in the project.
Even if the patch won’t be used in the original project, there’s enought for a fork. Next, some users might request context-dependent right-click menues and, then, CMYK support or whatever. Then, Adobe might start thinking if they didn’t miss something important.
(Please don’t get me wrong here. I’m happy with The GIMP as it is, but I heard other’s are not. Thus the example.)
Since these patches would be GPL, lots of people would benefit – even those who didn’t pay. Maybe they will pay for a feature others would like to see in GPL’ed software but didn’t have the money for. Even if not, who minds?
A similar model already proved to be useful in case of Blender.
Thus, your critic missed the point: The CEO of a company wouldn’t mind about the software being GPL after it got developed if it means that initial development costs will be lower (because it might reuse existing GPL code) and if initial development costs will be shared between a number of companies. Additionally, it means that other companies might spend money for adding features your own CTO hasn’t thought of. And it means you’re not locked in with a single software vendor.
There are probably lots of options for this: An additional example might be MacOS (od Windows) users who’d liked to get a GPL’ed software project compiling and running on their preferred OS.
Maybe there are companies out there already addressing this (although you failed to state a single link). The central problem, however, is the missing autorithy of a state worldwide. There’s no cheap way to enforce a contract (between one or more developers and lots of users) right now. And since GPL’ed software users are still a minority yet, there’s no other way as to get this organized worldwide.
Thus, I hope the idea will spread and get support.
P.S.: Excuse my english although I’m not french.
“I mean, who would pay for software that is GPL’d?”
If you’re wondering about this, you obviously do not understand a) the Freedom the GPL provides b) any history of GPL’ed software, because this has happened multiple times in the past.
“Is it a violation taking someone else’s software in the market, adding it to your software and selling it to a client? ”
Regarding GPL (and ie. BSDL): No. Read the GPL license, read the FAQ, read the GNU website, this info is over the place.
(granted, haven’t read the article _yet_)
“I mean, who would pay for software that is GPL’d?”
If you’re wondering about this, you obviously do not understand a) the Freedom the GPL provides b) any history of GPL’ed software, because this has happened multiple times in the past.
Why would someone pay for something that is downloadable for free? For support? Yah ofcourse, but how good is that support, take red hat for instance who depend on others that they’ll probably solve it.
I must say that the company I respect most in the OSS branch is Postgree. They release under BSD license 2 years later so that the community can benefit from changes to software with a FREE license and also pressure themselves to allways do better. Now that is a great business model for the company itself (has to innovate) and for the consumer (choose old free functional software or pay for new superior software).
XBe wrote:
> Why would someone pay for something that is downloadable for free?
Yea, how *does* iTunes sell songs? How *does* PBS get donations? People base their spending decisions on more than money. That is simply a (rather obvious) fact.
“Why would someone pay for something that is downloadable for free?”
First of all, not everyone can download Free (speech) software for a low price.
You make the assumption A) the software is downloadable for free (beer) B) the specific code is GPL. None of these are by definition true.
I’ll give you 3 examples:
1) Blender. This was already pointed out. Blender was closed source and asked iirc $200K donations. When this was mett, it would have been released as GPL. Read the stories about it at http://www.blender.org and http://www.waag.org
2) Emacs. RMS putted this on a tape for $150 including shipment costs (and including source). This happened in the late 80’s. Read the stories about it at http://www.gnu.org the FSF still asks money for specific CD’s which info you can also find on the site.
3) The fact someone coded a piece of software for a GPL program of which the name i can’t remember. He hadn’t released the source or binary. He asked a number of $ in order to release it as GPL. Nobody wanted to pay him for this, because people didn’t find his code necessary. He can now keep this code for himself and use it for whatever he wants. He just may not release a binary of his code which includes GPL software; he has to provide the source too, then. But he may use it for ”his own company” – for example. All the above is perfectly legal and i’m glad companies are able to do this under the terms of the GPL.
“I must say that the company I respect most in the OSS branch is Postgree. They release under BSD license 2 years later so that the community can benefit from changes to software with a FREE license and also pressure themselves to allways do better. Now that is a great business model for the company itself (has to innovate) and for the consumer (choose old free functional software or pay for new superior software).”
Sounds much like the Alladin license (AFPL) and like the way ID software releases their engines.
Why would someone pay for something that is downloadable for free?
The way I understand the article, it is about paying for something that does not exist yet, thus creating an additional incentive to create this something in the first place.
It’s like posting a wishlist, and paying whoever fulfills your wishes.