[ e ]

I pretty much agree. I have no problem paying someone for creating software. They spent their time on it, so why not. If they want to Open Source it, great. I haven't really studied the Open Source issue, but I thnk part of the Software to the People whine comes from the hacker origins of the Internet. I also think that its also an unconcious (sp?) backlash against paying several hundred dollars for software that people need/could use as opposed to other offerings, but can't afford. But that's just my pontificating $0.02.

posted by LeoMarch 24, 2005 at 11:42

It's very different [ e ]

A house, you can't duplicate it, thus you don't want to give it away. Software is experience, software is knowledge. You can share that.

If you're making a software and not making money directly out of its sales, in theory I'd say you have NO advantage of not opening its sources. Opening its sources means that people can potentially helps improving your software, adding features, fixing bugs, getting it ported, available for more people, etc. Not mentionning the fact that you help the community, since people can think and learn from your code.

I'm talking about all cases where you not making any direct profit selling the program, of course.

I think you're making a wrong amalgamate between "open source" and "free", btw. Music, the only way you can make money out of it is selling the "data". For programs however, you can potentially make money out of support in various kind (monthly based payment, updates, technical support). So whereas it is next to impossible to free your music if you want to earn money, there's way to free your program (free as in freedom) while keeping monetary benefit elsewhere.

posted by OmarMarch 24, 2005 at 17:57

Open-source game [ e ]

In fact, I'm now working on a CONSOLE based game and we're considering releasing the code as open source. We certainly have legal matters to resolve. But we believe it won't harm our business in any way to open sources.

posted by OmarMarch 24, 2005 at 18:01

Quick Response [ e ]

When I was working towards my computer science degree there was alot of talk about open source.  My first thoughts were that the open source idea, if it really caught on, would be bad for the industry and is agianst the business principles that made this country (America) wealthy.  I've never looked deeper into the issue.  If the software in question is not for direct profit, then you would be a "nice" guy or gal for sharing the information with others.  Gregg, at this point I would like to tell you how much I enjoyed your article posted December 28, 2004, titled "Nice" means Stupid.  That was the punch line, the clincher sentence....

posted by StickyRiceLoverMarch 25, 2005 at 9:04

[ e ]

Gregg, your desk and house analogies demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the difference between intellectual property and physical property.  Omar's first post summarizes it fairly well; to put it another way, when you give away intellectual property you have lost nothing, as you are only making a copy.  When you give away physical property, you no longer have it.  If you don't understand this, think about it until you do -- it's an important distinction.

Even the novel analogy doesn't fit, because in the situation you're describing, the software is already out there, presumably in executable form.  The executable is the part end users actually use, much like the novel is the part end users actually read, and the recorded song is the part end users actually listen to.  Source code could be considered (loosely) analogous to, for instance, the author's notes of a novel, or the sheet music of a recorded song.  Both of which, I think, could be given away without anyone batting an eye.

When people release software for free on the net without accompanying source code, they've already given it away.  What they aren't doing is allowing people to see how their program works, or to make unauthorized improvements to it.  So you should really change your final sentence to "... ask yourself what you yourself are willing work hard to make and allow people to see how it works and make improvements to it."

-Jim

posted by JimMarch 26, 2005 at 9:43

[ e ]

the profound lack of understanding comes from the people always asking for all code to be open sourced and not considering the implications.

Code takes time to make.  Asking for it without even considering the effort put in to make it strikes me as not very thoughtful.  Let's say it took me 200 hours of time to make some piece of software.  I understand that it costs me nothing to make a copy but it cost me 200 hours of my life to make in the first place.  So, it seems to me that people should ask for anything that takes 200 hours of effort to also be given to them for free.

You could argue that if I have an apple and it took me 5 minutes of effort to get that if I give it to you it will take me another 5 minutes to get enother where as if I have a piece software it will take me no time to get another since copies are free.  But, assume to took 200 hours to make that software, why is asking for 200 hours worth of effort for free okay and asking for 5 minutes of effort not?  Or, if people believe 200 hours of effort in software should be given away for free then why not 200 hours of effort picking 2400 apples (5 mins each) and giving away 2399.  In either case it's giving away 200 hours of time and effort.  Why is it that people don't ask for apples and hamburgers and articles and lots of other things for free when they take less effort to make than most software?

Note, I'm not against giving away software (or anything else). I have plenty of software I give away.  I just find it strange that nearly any time a new piece of software comes out the mail/comments start flowing in "make it open source" and I find it strange that the same doesn't happen with everything else.  They all take labor to make.

posted by greggmanMarch 27, 2005 at 13:25

[ e ]

Greggman: Because it is a current trend (and an heathly trend, IHMO) to release software as open-source, simple as that. It's community sharing.

But you're missing the point. Releasing open sources doesn't negate the work you spent on it. The point is that once you've done that 200-hours work, you're not adding yourself more work releasing sources neither you are losing something. It cost you zero (the work is done) and you're doing a favor to the community (people can improve your soft, or learn from it).

Again, think about the fact that you've already done this work. And you probably did it as a personal project to solve a need, or to please people. No one (I hope) is writing open-source software for free under a request. People are doing this work as a hobby/need for themselves, so they would do it anyway. Once they did it, they figure out, "heh it's done, maybe I could open it to other people".

I understand the value of software, of human work, and I pretty much agree with capitalism. But I think your exemples are wrong here.

Note: always talking in cases where there's no money involved. If you want to sell your software, it's a whole different debate.

posted by OmarMarch 27, 2005 at 16:10

[ e ]

There need to be intellectual property rights, because it takes a lot of time and skill to create computer software (and any other creative or intellectual endevour). It does not not cost "zero" to spend 200 hours creating software. Programmers, like most people. like to live in a nice house, drive a nice car, go to restaurants or even buy their own Island and helicopter if they are clever enough. They have every right to protect their work and make money from it. Greggman has made a very good point.

posted by anonamanMarch 30, 2005 at 13:31

[ e ]

Anonaman. Most of us should agree on the fact that if money has to be made from a software, open-source is not an easy way to go .

But here's what Gregg's saying:
> Why is it that anytime someone writes a piece of code and puts it
> on the net people say "you should open source it"
In this exemple case, he mention the fact that he puts the software on the net, suggesting that it is software downloadable at no-cost. Gregg even posted:
> I'm not against giving away software (or anything else).
> I have plenty of software I give away.
So the debate is not about making money here.
The debate tends to be about the trend of releasing source of a cost-free software.

Note that open-source doesn't mean that the software is given free. It's just that in practice, you have to rely on different means to make money out of an open-source software, compared to traditionnal software.


PS:
Referrin
g to your comment, most people on this planet do not live in a nice house, drive a nice car or go to restaurants as you suggested (and I'm not even mentionning your joke of buying an island). To go toward the debate/troll, I might suggest that this do-not-share reasoning has its share on why a big part of humanity live in relative poorness. We're talking about sharing knowledge. Patents on medecine, genome knowledge? Millions of indirect deaths every year.

posted by OmarMarch 31, 2005 at 8:40

Profound lack of analogies [ e ]

Greggman, I agree with Omar in that there is an incorrect correlation between your original anecdote and the analogies you provide afterwards.

When you say, "puts it on the net", this implies to me that what you are putting on the net is already free. You are already giving it away. When people then ask you to open-source it, they're essentially asking that you make it easier for them to modify what you have already given them.

To correlate correctly, your analogies should be more like:

"Thanks for giving me this house Gregg. Can you give me the blueprints so I can fix the leak in the bathroom?"

"The desk you gave me is great, but can I have the plans so I can add a hutch?"

"The novel you posted on the Internet is wonderful! Can I have the original Word document so that I can print it on paper?"

I agree with you that work is work, and deserves to be paid for. Just because a particular product has insignificant manufacturing costs doesn't negate the costs that went into R&D. In the case where people are asking that a commercial product be open sourced, that's definitely an unfair request.

I think the larger question, and I think this is the crux of the other posts arguments, is to what extent can you (fairly/deservedly/legally) make a profit on a product that costs nothing to manufacture/distribute?

P
atents last 17 years. Copyrights last about 100 I think. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, our arguments would dictate that patents and copyrights are perpetual. The Wright family would be the sole make of airplanes. Whoever invented the wheel would get royalty payments from everybody and would essentially own all of Earth. Where does it end?

posted by anony_johnApril 1, 2005 at 15:33

I love analogies [ e ]

To play devil's advocate, let me reframe another one of your previous analogies.

Let's say you spend 200 hours to grow an apple tree. You charge what you feel is 5 minutes worth of work for each apple that you let other people pick. Once you have been completely paid for your 200 hours worth of work, is it fair for you to keep charging people to pick your apples?

In all your previous analogies, it assumes that the worker/creator has not been fully compensated for his work. But what if he has been?

To put it another way, if it's unfair to be underpaid for something, is it also unfair to be overpaid?

Let the debate begin!!

posted by anony_johnApril 1, 2005 at 18:53

[ e ]

Is it fair to charge people to pick apples from your tree after the 200 hours has been? Sure. You have something that someone is willing to pay for regardless whether it is pure profit at this point. What's wrong with earning profit. Besides, government will find away to take that extra money.

Why not just put the software out there at the state that you, as the creator, feel that it is perfect. If someone wants to use the software fine. If someone feel that they can "improve" the software, let them do their own work. If I released software at a stage that I feel its perfect, then that's the way I want to release. It's just as arrogant as saying, "Oh, I can make it better". Instead of making it better, why not start from scratch and create something better.

It seems that this open-source everything is an extreme reaction towards closedd-source paid applications. There can be a happy medium, but the zealots must get off their high-horses about open-source every piece of software. And yes, this can be said of the closed-sourced adovates too. The zealots will do more damage than good.

posted by LeoApril 1, 2005 at 19:21

SysAdmin [ e ]

I'm surprised this headline hasn't sparked some sort of war *yet*.  The argument can go both ways for proprietary software and open source software - for or against.  The bottom line is, "What do the end users want to use the software for."  As an admin for a few (Linux) servers, it's nice to know everything is well documented and support is readily available.  On the other hand, what do you do when your Sony Playstation craps out on you (besides hoping it's still under warranty)?

posted by use_the_force_lukeApril 5, 2005 at 17:14

open-source misconceptions [ e ]

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people assume open-source == free, while although common, not necessarily true in all cases.

a lot of people also don't understand that just because the source is open doesn't mean you can do with it what you want.  A lot of people (myself included) don't truely understand the fine-print in the OpenSource licenses (GPL, Perl, BSD, etc) and therefor assume they can do what they want with the source.

While there are certain environments where open source projects are beneficial, there are equally environments where it is not beneficial.  This too is misunderstood.

I think all of these reasons are the cause for the "oooh, make it open source!" trend.

posted by alien8April 6, 2005 at 4:13

Where open source works [ e ]

As I see it, the place where open-source works the best is in the realm of very large corporations.

Let's say you're Sun Microsystems... maybe you've got 100,000 people in your company world-wide (I'm just guessing at the numbers here). Just about all of those employees has a computer on their desk and is going to need some sort of OS and application suite. If one were to buy those from Microsoft, it would be at least $100 for the OS, and $500 for each seat of the office suite. That's $60 million! And that doesn't count the costs of upgrades every couple of years.

For less than $60 million, you could pay your programmers to write you a very nice office suite and OS. But then you still have to maintain it: fix bugs, add features, support new hardware, etc. . But, if you open-source that software, the costs of maintenance are offset by the work of outside contributors... at that point they just have a skeleton staff assigned to the project to manage the work of outside contributors and add features that their own company needs.

Those outside contributors aren't usually hobbyists, but rather employees of other companies. When these other companies adopt Sun's open-source software, they may assign some engineers to add the features that they need for their company. Again, this is a lower cost than paying Microsoft (or whomever) per seat for everyone in the company.

So it's not an altruistic thing to provide open-source software. It's a shrewd business decision. I'm sure some would argue that Sun would have been better off trying to sell the software. I think that is what they originally tried to do with Star Office, but I suspect it didn't turn into a profit center for the company. Later, Star Office was released for free, and eventually it was open-sourced as Open Office.

To me, this is where it makes sense to open-source software. The side-effect of this is that people start to expect to get stuff for free... which is what you were complaining about, Gregg.

I'm not sure what the answer to that is. As a programmer myself, I certainly lament that there is no market for small time software anymore. MAME pretty much makes it an unprofitable proposition to write independent games.

So I've reinvented myself as a freelance web developer. Business software these days is a website with a database backend, built on the backs of open source software like Linux, Apache, PHP and MySQL. If you can't beat 'em... join 'em!

-- Timon --

posted by timonApril 9, 2005 at 2:36

[ e ]

The post above is not about open source VS other kinds of licenses.  It's people asking for free labor for software but not for free labor for cooking or cleaning or lawn mowing or building houses or medical services etc etc etc.

posted by greggmanApril 9, 2005 at 10:21