Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times)
We know some LWN readers must be thinking: "we haven't seen any good FUD
for a little while." For those readers, here's a
low-clue piece by a "distinguished service provessor of law" in the
Financial Times, which really should know better. "The bottom line
is that idealistic communes cannot last for the long haul. The open source
movement may avoid these difficulties for outside contributors who work for
credit and glory. But how do the insiders, such as Linus Torvalds, cash out
of the business that they built? And in the interim, how do they attract
capital and personnel needed to expand the business? Traditional companies
have evolved their capital structures for good reason." (Thanks to
Neil Sheed).
(Log in to post comments)
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 22, 2004 14:33 UTC (Fri) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link] Well, this is a stupid and uninformed article I'd say.The key behind open source is not only that you get the binaries for free, it is that you or your company can gain control over the development of the software which they base their business on. In hardware/electronics there is always the question: is there a second source for this part ? Why doesn't everybody ask the same question for software, the operating system: is there a second source for my OS ? If you use windows, there is only one source. If you use a free OS, there are as many sources as you want, you can even yourself become a source. Bye Alex
If you use windows, there is only one source. Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:10 UTC (Fri) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]
Unless that source is released on, say, some rogue website by a source code licensee. Which brings up another point: if your OS wasn't built with the knowledge the source code would be made public, pray it never will.
If you use windows, there is only one source. Posted Oct 22, 2004 18:54 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] In Windows/Longhorn !?...
" Unless that source is released on, say, some rogue website by a source code licensee. "
Rest assured that will never happen,...
Microsoft only have two ways for total and absolute control now:
The other ways they will start to lose more each time, and faster.
I belive, is the 2) what they are trying to do with Longhorn/NGSCB/Paladium: a 'certifiable' DRM based lock.
(this kind of articles shouldn't surprise anyone no more!)
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 25, 2004 2:30 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] The key behind open source is not only that you get the binaries for free No, "Open Source" does not mean you get the binaries or source for free. Ask RedHat, or SuSe or even Sun. You might even pay hundreds of thousands, even millions, of euro for the binaries/source, if you pay for it to be developed or pay some other first-use cost/fee for Free Software (See, eg, how blender was open-sourced by way of a huge fee.).
Those Who Can... Posted Oct 22, 2004 14:59 UTC (Fri) by Prototerm (guest, #20227) [Link] In my 50-some years living in the real world, I've found there are few old saws truer then "those who can, do; those who cannot, teach". In my experience, the vast majority of the professors in colleges and universities are so insulated from reality that they haven't the faintest idea what living on the Planet Earth is like. The author of this article is a case in point.
When the real world appears to disagree with their academic pronouncements, these professors will patiently point out that the student has come to an erroneous conclusion, based on poor observation or a logical fallacy, or both. Their own conclusions, of course, are never in dispute.
To be fair, there are, of course, exceptions. Although few, these people are themselves exceptional, and almost make up for the clueless masses that control the academic ivory towers. Unfortunately, the author is one of the clueless.
Those Who Can... Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:29 UTC (Fri) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link] In my experience, the vast majority of the professors in colleges and universities are so insulated from reality ... the clueless masses that control the academic ivory towersReally? Your experience covers the vast majority of professors? In a broad cross section of departments, universities and countries? Sure. Whatever. Somehow, I think not. Anyway... There are plenty of techie people willing to spread FUD about things they don't agree with. Look at various Sun techie blogs or MS press releases of the last few weeks if you don't believe me. Would you appreciate it if someone generalised from these self-promoting outliers to make crass and ill-informed comments about your profession. Idiotic generalisations don't help anybody, and just make you look some unappealing combination of stupid or bitter.
Those Who Can... Posted Oct 22, 2004 23:07 UTC (Fri) by jtc (guest, #6246) [Link] I think what Prototerm said in his first paragraph is true, if two phrases are changed:
"the vast majority of <people> are so insulated from reality that they haven't the faintest idea what living on the Planet Earth is <truly> like."
Warning: Off-topic political injection: As an example, look at how many people support president Bush.
Those Who Can... Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:53 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I think it's more a problem with columnists. I suspect some of them will write anything in order to catch some attention or make a few extra bucks, not to deliver a particular point of view. It is unfortunately much easier to dump your uninformed or intentionally controversial opinion somewhere than it is to respond to it, so you can easily get away with it. And of course a bunch of hairy zealots are a much better target than big corporations you might want to stay friends with.For a professor of law, who has apparently read the GPL, this should be a rather embarrassing column. It's like a professor of physics struggling with Newton's Laws. Pretty pathetic. (Maybe that "Distinguished Service professor" is a title that can be bought?)
Those Who Can... Posted Oct 23, 2004 11:53 UTC (Sat) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] Interestingly enough, as an academic who spent many years previously working as an engineer in industry, one of the main incentives to study, improve and publish source code is academic. The added value we contribute to society in return for our modest but secure salaries is a combination of what we teach our students and how we develop knowledge. What is the point of developing knowledge unless you publish it ? I have noticed very many significant contributions to Free Software made as a consequence of academic research.
Once a program develops to the point where it becomes commercially interesting, then it is the interests of those who base their commerce on particular programs to continue to develop and maintain these, and share the cost of doing so with other developer-users. However, academic interest is likely to be significant in taking a program to the point where it has commercial usefulness. It is no accident that the early Linux kernel was an entirely academic project.
Last paragraph Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:27 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] The last paragraph is the key part.
"this novel form of business association should succeed or fail on its own merit"
is code for
"Bureaucrats should have the authority to bind government to proprietary software licenses and impose proprietary software manates on citizens."
Last paragraph Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:30 UTC (Fri) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link] Really? I read it for the exact opposite. i.e. "I believe Open Source is doomed intrinsically, so any govt controls on it are completely needless red tape."
Last paragraph Posted Oct 22, 2004 22:54 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] You're both wrong. He's saying that governments should pass regulations that favor open source software as a general class. He doesn't imply that any particular open-source product couldn't be the best choice for a government, but simply that the government should choose on the merits of the software, not on its business model. [Merits would presumably include things like quality, support, viability of continued support, and other issues that would interact with the business model underlying the software.]
Last paragraph Posted Oct 22, 2004 22:55 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Crap - major typo in second sentence - "should be "He's saying that governments should NOT pass..."
Last paragraph Posted Oct 22, 2004 16:18 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Well, there's his problem right there. He's assuming free software is a business, since in his worldview, business is all that matters--individuals, creativity and doing things for the fun of it are things to be exploited in the pursuit of the one true god, Profit. So people freely giving others the fruit of their labor since it doesn't cost them anything (or very little) to make a copy, makes no sense to him. Some people can't grasp the fact that greed is not the only strong motivator in the world.
Last paragraph Posted Oct 22, 2004 22:57 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Um, the article is about whether building open-source software is a viable business model. He's not assuming it's a business, he's saying that he doesn't think building a business on that model is viable.
Last paragraph Posted Oct 22, 2004 20:06 UTC (Fri) by mangino (guest, #74) [Link] I Don't attribute this as any secret code for that, I think this is a free-market comment. He is simply saying that there is no reason to afford open source any protection, let it succeed or fail on its own merits. This seems reasonable to me, only use open source if it makes sense.
I did send him an email, since I am interested in some of the economic analysis raised. here is my response:
--------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to thank you for your article in the financial times regarding the long term viability of open source software. I found it well reasoned and insightful. I would like to make you aware of a few points which some may disagree. You state:
As an author of software licensed under the GPL, I think you misinterpret the most common intent of that section of the GPL. While some people may in fact wish for software to "infect" others, the typical intent is to ensure that software written and published without remuneration is not usurped by a corporate entity. For example, code written for the BSD operating system and licensed under an essentially public domain license was used by Microsoft in their Windows product with no payment to the developers and without Microsoft making their modifications public. If this code had been GPL licensed, Microsoft still could have used the software programs, but the developers would have benefitted from Microsoft's expertise (clearly a nonzero sum game). The GPL can thus be seen as an attempt to avoid the free rider problem, others may use your work, but also must give back with any enhancements they make.
Also, the GPL has been defended in Germany, and most violations of the license have been cleared up quickly by the offender simply removing the GPL covered code from their product. There is little desire to "infect" other code, only to ensure that others that benefit from the fruits of your labor also give back to the community.
My other slight disagreement with your piece involves the inevitable instability of idealistic communes. Your analogy makes much sense, however I'm not sure it is an accurate representation of the software world. The fact that software distribution is zero marginal cost makes this type of setup more sustainable. If I develop software to meet my needs, it costs me nothing to allow others to use that software. In fact, if the software helps another user and they improve it slightly, my marginal cost of distribution becomes negative (Since by distributing the software, I receive a benefit with no expense.) The network effects from a large and diverse number of users actually help spread the cost of software development from a single company with a need, to a community that shares that need. It is important to note that most open source projects involve infrastructure type components. I have not yet seen a reasonable example of a company trying to build competitive advantage through open source. In fact, I think it could be successfully argued that open source precludes a competitive advantage in a given area. The question of distribution of value in a split is equally interesting. The commodity nature of these goods also help create an environment where sharing can be more tolerated. For commodity software, there is little need for a competing commercial product.
Your analogy also fails when you discuss distribution of value with a leaving party. When a developer leaves an open source product, the only value lost is that of the potential future value of their contributions. The existing value can be taken 100% by both parties due to the fact that software is not a scarce resource. This leads to a unique communal situation, one very different to any existing type of worker commune. The zero marginal cost nature of software distribution changes the traditional rules for these types of activities.
Where I strongly agree with you is in suggesting that open source should succeed or fail on its own merits. I have enjoyed watching companies attempt to profit with a product that is available equally to all. Those that have succeeded have largely used other scarce resources such as strong relationships or a name brand. The long term future of this business model will be interesting to watch.
Again, thank you for your article. I am very interested in the field of zero marginal cost economics, and look forward to seeing more studies on the implications of open source on intellectual property.
Mike Mangino (Software Developer and amateur economics buff)
--
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:39 UTC (Fri) by joib (guest, #8541) [Link] Ah, the eminent Richard Epstein. I have a faint memory that he has published similar, equally clueless, commentary in the past?
References Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:41 UTC (Fri) by ayeomans (subscriber, #1848) [Link] Richard Epstein's home pageJames DeLong's paper "The Enigma of Open Source Software (Version 1.0)"
References Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:56 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Okay, so he's not stupid. Must be a secret agenda then.
References Posted Oct 22, 2004 21:59 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] I notice from his web page that he doesn't have listed anything about copyright, intellectual property, or licensing. Smart people will often say stupid things about topics which are just outside of their area of knowledge, and this seems to be a prime example. He clearly wants to apply economics to an area which is driven not be the creation of wealth but the creation of custom goods. He wants to apply contract law to copyright licensing.
Linus got the opportunity to "cash out" of Linux in the mid-90s, when he had a working *nix kernel on his x86. Many developers do join projects, do the thing they want done, and quit once the project satisfies their needs, having gotten the thing they wanted for a reasonable investment of effort. Sure, they can't exchange it for its value (to them) in cash, but the same is true of tailored suits.
You can't include remedies in a license; someone infringing a copyright has no license at all, so the details of some license the person does not have don't matter. Furthermore, there may be many licenses the owner offers to different or the same people, and any of these is sufficient, regardless of the terms of others of them. Or the owner may not license the work at all, keeping it private. In cases of infringement, it is the nature of the work and the infringement which matter; licenses don't matter to the penalties for infringement except in so far as they imply things about the work.
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:52 UTC (Fri) by jamesm (guest, #2273) [Link] It's bizarre how the essay starts off on one track with some very weak criticism of open source, and ends up giving a sermon on the "fiduciary duties of government".
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 22, 2004 17:34 UTC (Fri) by butcher (subscriber, #856) [Link] "The do-or-die question is whether open source offers a low cost solution to particular problems."Nope. The do-or-die question is whether open source software offers any solution to particular problems. Cost is only one of many factors that influence folks to choose particular software solutions. For me, it usually boils down to "scrathability" of a particular itch that I have. In general, people "itch" for a variety of reasons; cost is just one component of "scratching". IMHO, sustainability of an open-source project seems to hinge on whether the code happens to scratch the itches of people who also are qualified to contribute and maintain the code. That assertion plays for both individuals with intrinsic motivations as well as companies with economic motivations.
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 22, 2004 18:31 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Wasn't there some guy named Yunker who told everyone to go out and buy lots of water and stuff because the Universe was going to be blown up by computers in the year 2000? Wasn't that the same guy who was into "combat-ready programming" or something like that?
Are all the architects and building-trade and plumbing and electrical-wiring and window companies going to go out of business because we have the blueprints to our buildings?
I did note the word "commune". Interesting. The Evil Comxxxxx xxxx ungodly atheistic.....
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 22, 2004 18:46 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Here's what I view as the long and short of it:
Our industry has been replete with trade-secrets mentality ever since "consumers" chould have, and run, binary software. At the same time, there has never been any concerted effort to *prevent* such people from writing their *own* software, and then distributing whatever parts of it they choose. By this, in combination with some unique views espoused by the likes of Richard Stallman, it came about that people could *mandate* that their source code remain available to *anyone* who wished to use the binaries, and, further, setting guidelines that would prevent such source code from becoming the private, hidden property of some *enterprising* business-person.
Ultimately, we have a whole spectrum of views, and approaches, to the distribution and management of computer programs, ranging from completely public-domain, to proprietary, to "guaranteed public access to source."
I cannot see how such a "model" is "unsustainable," in light of the fact that anyone can *still* write, and distribute, their computer software in whatever way they see fit.
Is it possible we are looking at people who just don't *want* non-proprietary models to be sustainable?
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 22, 2004 20:11 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Is it possible we are looking at people who just don't *want* non-proprietary models to be sustainable? "
Bulls eye
There is still a dominating view of computers as appliances that, i belive, traverse the domestic/SOHO, SME, and a large proportions of the Corporate world... everywhere where are *not maintained systems* or *poorely maintained* ones.
From the point of view of the sellers( the merchandizing view) Wintel was/is preceived as a hell of a metod to sell *aplliances*, where Windows is the drog, that makes everything flow... is not by chance that MS OSes seem so bloated at many times... is not by change the ever sky-rocket incrising resources recomended to run MS-OSes... it has made hardware prices drop like comets, but it has maintained selling at a reasonable pace...
From the point of view of the buyers!!... well most of them cant tell the head from the tail, at least in the *not* or *poor* maintained systems places... and to help a lot to the situation, the MSCEs dont help, because by principle they should not speak against their products... so buyers will buy, based on marketing propaganda/promotion,period.
IT IS THIS ECOSYSTEM THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE... because is a system that is based on the ignorance, poor information or misinformation of the buyers in order to be able to flow,... and is somehow stagnanting because of the ever incrising complexity of integration, and the ever incrising security problems... new more complex *appliances* dont solve those major points, instead they make them worst and expensive... so people try to understand better, and adquire a more pro-active wait and see, and that not only because of economic depression...
Open Source just blow all this wide open... and is unstoppable if is able to contribute to the pro-activeness, by the way of accessible instruction, like the LPI project, and solid standards...
I belive the old, decrepit, IT dominant forces are much more affraid than they are willing to tell, and even more so, because of financial issues that arise from their inability and incompetence.
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 22, 2004 19:11 UTC (Fri) by pjs (guest, #10927) [Link] I wonder just how long Richard believe the "long haul" is, in which the ultimate demise of free software will occur?
Stallman started GNU about 20 years ago. Torvalds started about 14 years ago. KDE for 7 years. Apache, Perl, MySQL... all been going strong and getting stronger for many years. Sure, some projects have failed, some become obsolete, but as a whole, open source just keeps on growing.
His "recipe for immense resentment" so far hasn't been a significant factor yet. He doesn't offer any explaination for what circumstances will make this pervious non-issue into the ultimate failure of open source. We used to hear this arguement years ago, when Red Hat and others went public and IBM became a player. Suddenly, the profit motive would make all existing contributor resent their inability to reap financial reward. It seems plausible then, that a change was at hand that could undermine developers' motivation. That was years ago and it didn't come to pass.
It's an old argument. Hopefully soon the (also old) "GPL never been tested" (followed by predictions it will be unenforcable) arguement will be put to rest by IBM's 8th counterclaim (SCO infringed IBM's copyrights by distribution in violation of GPL).
But no matter how old, how weak, how thoughly discredited... it seems there'll always be more people like Richard A Epstein who either just don't like free software, or are in league with Microsoft (note the last paragraph), and have no ethical problem repeating these old meritless argments.
capitalism and open source Posted Oct 22, 2004 20:19 UTC (Fri) by vsp (guest, #1893) [Link] As a believer in both capitalism (today's political correct term "free-markets") and open source, I tried to explain to myself their "controversial" coexistence. Reading Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and Last Man" got me thinking: maybe the "struggle for recognition", the third component part of human nature (along with desire and reason), is responsible for the ability of people to work for no material gain.
capitalism and open source Posted Oct 22, 2004 21:58 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " "struggle for recognition" "
Its only a gut-feeling but i belive, that is the 3th reason, *reason*, that is the major propeller of Open Source...
Dont want and or need to get philosophical, be full of references... because most of times, reasons to revolutionary or deep changing events are very simple in nature...
What would do thounsand of programmers sorting every year from Universitys arround the world, or casual *lovers* involved by it, and that simply just *LOVE* their craft, in a closed monopolitic world ?...
...they will simply code, no matter what... they are compeled to code, not for political, economical, social, recognition reasons, but because of coding itself... because that is what they love to do...
And i'm not implying that was Microsoft that inadvertly triggered Open -Source... more or less billion, liking or not, Microsoft is just *ONE* resistance force, nothing more, in a similar way as the road is the resistance to a car tire, by which the *love* of computer coding will move foward...
Love (Latin: Amors = without dead ; so please dont confound it with desire or any sexual emotion) is the true everlasting energie behind any *reason*.
One can say that Open Source was just meant to be... because there was an irresistible energie with it... if you can define so subtle and yet so overwhelming powerfull reason!
capitalism and free markets Posted Oct 23, 2004 12:03 UTC (Sat) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] >As a believer in both capitalism (today's political correct term> "free-markets")
This implies you are unaware of the massive difference between these 2 concepts. Capitalism is about how, through corporate cannibalism, a tiny minority becomes powerful enough to buy laws, subsidies and governments in the pursuit of monopoly privilege. The engineering of monopolies is all about the _prevention_ of free and competitive markets. The problem monopolists have with free markets is that these lessen the scope for unfair profits.
capitalism and free markets Posted Oct 26, 2004 2:22 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > free markets ... lessen the scope for unfair profitsPosit a truly free market and yes, for the first generation, unfair profits will have a limited scope. But markets *by their nature* engender inequality. They allocate scarce goods to those with the ability to pay, not to the needy. Even if all market players are supposed to have precisely equal abilities to profit, the moment someone accumulates enough capital to invest -- not very much is required -- he or she has an advantage over people who have less. A few generations down the track and free markets will bring you back to the present -- capitalist -- situation.
capitalism and free markets Posted Oct 26, 2004 18:46 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " The engineering of monopolies is all about the _prevention_ of free and competitive markets. The problem monopolists have with free markets is that these lessen the scope for unfair profits "
I belive, and with a stricking clear logic, at least to me, that monopolies are not engineered, that is, they are not a different approach from the general 'free, wild and deregulated pursuit of profit' but simply a consequence of it... being so 'free markets' never realy existed(only in concept), and could never exist in this model, because the model tends to cannibalize itself,... and equilibrium is always temporary and distorted...
I'm not advocating any political theory, only a racional, unpassionated and logic analysis... economics is *NOT A TRUE SCIENCE*, only a theory based on some rather simple mathematics... a benchmark tool mostly, with some previsability presumptions... (urgh!... and we live, die and kill based on it... how unsanely stupid the earth must look like to an E.T.)
Evidence is everywhere... of how cannabilizing the model can be... of how much injustice and poverty it can produce... and it is not because of any political regime by itself(China is a capitalist nation), but because the model tends to a null system, that is, money has more value than the people, so people tend to be marginalized or cast out of the model, but it is *generaly* people that are the *buyers* the *consumers*, the essencial element to the sustainability of the system...
... so a system that tend to 'cast out' what is essencial to itself (it even kills its potencial costumers/consumers if need, for a quicker profit), can only tend to the nullity...
... actual Western Economic model could only be 'forever' sustainable if production is made on a complete automatic fashion, with never ending resources and power supply, and the consumers *Robots* with always incrising needs, and with an infinite credit so they could take the eternity paying for it !!... ( that is the anatomy of *financial* profit )
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 22, 2004 23:20 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I think the large bulk of comments posted so far are responding more to the editor's comment about it being "low-clue" than to what the article actually contains.
The beginning is a lightweight analysis of the GPL, which is probably appropriate for a non-technical audience (it's in the Financial Times, not in either the UC Law Review or CACM). There's nothing dreadfully wrong with the analysis.
The next part is about open-source AS A BUSINESS MODEL. There's nothing there that says enthusiasts won't keep developing a particular project. Frankly, I think he's right - if a group of people got together with the goal of getting rich (the general purpose of starting a business) by writing open-source software, the issues he raises definitely would apply. If you're in it for love, recognition, or because you're compelled to code, more power to you, but not everybody is. The only mistake he makes here is misclassifying Linus, who clearly isn't in it as a capitalist and didn't start or continue coding Linux *as a business*.
The last section says, sensibly, that governments shouldn't automatically favor open-source software, but should make decisions on software acquisition based on the merits of the software. It's perfectly possible to make a strong case for Linux on its merits, so I don't think that point is an attack on anything or a vote for choosing Microsoft automatically.
The availability of long-term support IS critical to businesses and governments, as well as to other users, and having an established vendor who is likely to be around in the future, OR a strong developer base from which to recruite maintainers for an open-source product, is a valid factor in making acquisitions. It's reasonable to choose Linux, with a large experience pool, but choosing an open-source product on its first release with only one developer familiar with its 3 million lines of code would not be.
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 23, 2004 12:27 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] There is a characteristic of open-source (especially free, as in freedom) software that your analysis does not take into account:
Even if "one developer" is "familiar with xxx lines of code,) the work is still exposed to auditing, and you are free to modify it.
American-style, capitalist, "corner-the-market" businesspeople are loath to want this, if they are in the business of writing software to make money. Their desires are in direct conflict with *everyone else* who uses, or wishes to program, computers.
Also, I'm not impressed with catch-phrases like "worker's commune" and "creeping imperialism of the GPL."
I read the article.
The title is trollish Posted Oct 23, 2004 12:34 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I think that comments are rather responding to the inflammatory, trollish title. Is it justified in the text of the article that "open source is unsustainable"? The author just points out some contradictions that he was not able to untangle by himself.The first part is an amateurish analysis of the GPL; stating, as has been pointed out above, that "compulsory licensing" is the only solution to GPL infringement. This paragraph is specially funny: Suppose, for example, that A uses some open source code in his program, which is in turn used by B. If B has no knowledge of how A cobbled together his program, then the GPL may be read not to apply at all.So licenses only apply when you are aware of them? Can I redistribute my mp3 collection because "I have no knowledge of how it was cobbled together"? Please. If the GPL does not apply, you cannot distribute your software because you have no license from the owner. The next part makes a very shallow analysis of developer motivations, mistaking "communities" for "communes" and presuming that the open source movement shares common ideals. It has been pointed out before that "open source is agnostic"; people with different ideals, political views and opinions work together for a common goal. The final paragraph forgets that government procurement procedures can (and should) require certain conditions, even if that leaves out some providers. When a bridge is being built the responsible agency usually requests the blueprints; otherwise it might be forced to contract all maintenance to the builders. Similarly, when an operating system is being installed in a public administration, it sounds reasonable to request complete source code and toolchain so that service and support can be provided by a third party (even if redistribution is prohibited). Free software just provides a natural solution to this problem.
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 25, 2004 16:16 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Frankly, I think he's right - if a group of people got together with the goal of getting rich (the general purpose of starting a business) by writing open-source software, the issues he raises definitely would apply... "
Not Necessarily.
Selling software as a product, yes... is tremendously difficult for any new starter to get reasonably what we can call rich... but that even in Microsoft environments(perhaps even more)!...
Selling integration services, and support services based on a commom pool of software dosent seem to me to be that tremendously difficult if you have the know-how... and on local level, opportunitys abound, capable of a reasonable wealth.
Contrary to Richard A Epstein i belive that is the current model that is not sustainable, because in its large proportion of domestic/SOHO, SME, and some corporation shops, is in the hands of *marchandilists* that tend to walk away from the necessary 'expertize' as integration, systems, support know-how, tend to rize more each time new 'things' get developed.
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 25, 2004 16:39 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Forgot...
Local specific needs, and a particular shop needs, are much better handled if you have the source code for the programs to run.
FUD and such... Posted Oct 23, 2004 2:13 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Hate to use the "F" word, but just have a read of this: First, as a straight interpretive matter, it only states what the obligation of each programmer is with his own private improvements. It does not in so many words specify the appropriate remedy when some portion of the open source code is incorporated into an otherwise proprietary program. The apparent intention of the provision is to “infect” that new program so that all of its content becomes open source software subject to the GPL. In principle, the entire Microsoft operating system could count as “the work” that becomes open source because a few lines of open source code have been incorporated into it by inadvertence. Since when is compulsory licensing one of the remedies for copyright infringement? This is the exact false argument one can find on Microsoft's web site. Complete and utter nonsense. All one needs to do is:
Stopped reading at that point...
As opposed to what? Posted Oct 23, 2004 3:03 UTC (Sat) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Churchill said Democracy is the worst form of government except for allthose others that have been tried. Open source is the worst form of software development and distribution, except for all the others. Look what happened before free software became as broad and useful as it is now. There was one source for software solutions. No competition. Any good idea was eaten up by the monoliths. Unix was disappearing, Windows was gradually encroaching on all market segments. Remember the 'I love you' trojan? At the time what else could a person use? If something like that happened next week, the Evolution and Kmail servers would have to be replaced due to overuse. All of a sudden there are alternatives popping up. Google could fool around with thousands of boxes for no more than the cost of commodity hardware and their time. All of a sudden there are new and interesting developments showing up. We would have waited till Windows 2016 for any security enhancements. Microsoft is actually responding to customers! Yes it would be nice if all the free software developers could make windfalls from their work. But to say that the system is flawed is to ignore the enormous improvements that have come about in the marketplace due to free software. Derek
As opposed to what? Posted Oct 24, 2004 18:19 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Yes it would be nice if all the free software developers could makewindfalls from their work. But to say that the system is flawed is to ignore the enormous improvements that have come about in the marketplace due to free software. "
I belive that resumes the base line of all the question.
I belive this is not a 'political'(not entirely) or 'communal' or 'community' problem, but a 'Society' problem, and have its roots in education.
I dont hate Microsoft, and i can easly state that they surely have very good engineers and have done good stuff,..., but they have also destroyed the value of software by emptying its importance and the importance of any developer, in a overall marketing Strategy, that in a last analisys, had the propose of transfering all that value, to an 'Ultimate' brand name (Microsoft) and to an 'Ultimate' developer/leader(the reachest man in the world)... that has glued like cement to concrete, in the minds of the generaly very low tech aware masses of potencial 'would be' computer users.
The 'Consumption Society' that he live in just loves it, thought we are in presence perhaps of the biggest mass mind controlling, trough commercial propaganda, since the advancement of the mass press printing by the chinese.
People are/were educated to belive and to respond positively to such icons
So only massive doses of information, and a massive effort of education and user friendliness, that could transfer some importance of the Status Quo Ultimate Icons into a more distributed form of software projects/developers, can make software developers 'profit' and get more 'retribution' from their work.
*Open Source*(generaly speacking) model could very well be the right model, since it is in synchrony with the real Information Society that will be centered arround the 3th (agriculture, industrial, services) economical ring, that are *services*.
As opposed to what? Posted Oct 26, 2004 14:35 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] what can do software developers, any software developers to any system, so that they can get more 'retribution' from their work ?...I have no point to make. I just had to repeat this lovely malapropism (well, it's a malapropism unless you write the embedded software in military weapons). Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to get some retribution. ;}
As opposed to what? Posted Oct 26, 2004 19:11 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] 'I'm off to get some retribution. ;} '
By that, i can easly suppose that you are getting off to get some money for your work,..., or some praise words from a satisfied costumer ?
Where is the offending : 'grotesque misuse of a word; a word so used' ?
As opposed to what? Posted Oct 29, 2004 0:59 UTC (Fri) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] 'retribution' and 'remuneration' are very different things.
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 24, 2004 4:13 UTC (Sun) by pellicci (guest, #21392) [Link] I think Richard Epstein makes an interesting point: Open Source Software needs to develop a sustainable economic model.
Developers love to do the 'fun' stuff, but few are willing to do the 'grunt' work like writing documentation. Case in point -- there are a number of professionally written manuals for Sun StarOffice, but nothing comparable for OpenOffice. StarOffice costs money, OpenOffice is 'free'.(Thank goodness the StarOffice manuals can be downloaded in .pdf format!) The same is true for Redhat Linux and Fedora -- there are a whole set of professionally written manuals for Redhat, but very little for Fedora. Redhat costs money, Fedora is 'free'.
This situation is not new. In the 'old' days, Tim O'Reilly made a bag full of money producing professional manuals for the various bits'n'pieces of Unix. He seems to be doing very well doing the same thing for Linux. O'Reilly is a business. He isn't writting the manuals and giving them away for nothing. It cost him money. He charges you money. He needs to make some profit to stay in business.
Writing software -- that is to say -- finishing off the less than 'fun' stuff, like de-bugging and documentation usually costs money. And that will require some type of sustainable business model.
While some big Open Source Software projects are self-sustaining, many others rely on the deep pockets of commercial vendors: Fedora (Redhat), OpenOffice (Sun), Eclipse (IBM), Mozilla (AOL).
Smaller Open Source Software companies have tended to rely rather heavily on consulting revenue to fund their development efforts. That model is somewhat limited. To grow large enough to fund and sustain important projects, Open Source Software needs to develop some sustainable business models.
Mike Pellicci
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 24, 2004 11:56 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Open Source Software needs to develop a sustainable economic model.In my view, the reverse is true: sustainable economic models must adapt to Open Source Software. Companies usually associated with closed software development must move to open source and release their wares as Free software. This is, to a large extent, what is happening right now. It is a good thing that commercial vendors are funding big projects; it means that they are willing to do their part in order to sustain open source projects, since they later benefit from the resulting software. Furthermore, I think that "open source" and "business model" are mostly orthogonal concepts; one is related to software engineering, the other to economics. There are companies who give away closed software (Winamp's Nullsoft comes to mind), and those that sell Free software (like Red Hat). Only a small portion of pathological business models are precluded from open source development, such as development of undocumented interfaces (as Microsoft with the SMB protocol), formats (office suites) or secret algorithms (as Adobe with PDF encryption and most DRM vendors). Companies in this range are the ones that are truly afraid of open source; the rest are slowly adapting.
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Oct 25, 2004 17:09 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Smaller Open Source Software companies have tended to rely rather heavily on consulting revenue to fund their development efforts. That model is somewhat limited. "
That is because they couldn't so far, or they are not trying now, to offer complete solutions, from hardware( drivers problems), the integration ( legacy apllications and MS locks), the software (a good desktop) and support services (lack of quantity professionals)...
Things have developed so that all those areas are falling slowly into line... and everything from doc to debugg will get much better, as soon as commercial interests drop from server/supercomputer into the more everyday/everywhere computer needs.(IMO drivers issues are the more 'inadequate' ones, preventing another explosion of FOSS use.)
That is why articles like the one we are commenting will start to appear more often.
Epstein is a zealot Posted Oct 24, 2004 12:58 UTC (Sun) by douglass (guest, #25611) [Link] First, (and I can hardly believe a tenured law professor at Chicago wrote these words):
"It [the GPL] does not in so many words specify the appropriate remedy when some portion of the open source code is incorporated into an otherwise proprietary program."
Code incorporated into a program without the permission (i.e. license) of the author is a copyright violation. Title 17 of the U.S. Code has very many words to say about appropriate remedies for this.
See e.g.
Second, Epstein is the director of the James Olin Program in Law and Economics. Start with 'James Olin Program' in anything. Olin was a wealthy wingnut whose foundation, along with the Bradley Foundation and Richard Mellon Scaife's foundations fund much of the right wing in America. Look at the Heritage Foundation's website or its sponsored media/blogs (Townhall.com), the American Enterprise Institute or any of the right wing think tanks and activist organizations. You will see the names Olin, Bradley and Scaife travelling in a pack.
Third, Law and Economics is a right wing legal theory, largely funded by the foundations mentioned above, to apply economic principles to legal decision making. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_economics for more. Their pretense is that the application of economics to law is neutral and common sensical but its practitioners generally have thumb on the rightward end of the scale.
Fourth, and this goes to Epstein's motive. Remember the laughable book by Ken Brown of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI) accusing Linus of stealing the kernel? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville_Instit... ). Will it come as any surprise that the three primary funders of AdTI are the Olin, Scaife and Bradley foundations?
See http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Alexis_de_To...
OT: Right Wing Posted Oct 25, 2004 14:19 UTC (Mon) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550) [Link] Ah, so. Um, what does "right wing" mean, and why is it good, or bad?
Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) Posted Nov 5, 2004 15:31 UTC (Fri) by OnTheLevel (guest, #25868) [Link] As a student of economics, a proponent of open source software, and a developer, let me say this. Let's face it...writing your everyday spreadsheet application while not easy, is not rocket science. Still, during the early 90's several people wanted to believe that every peice of software they wrote was the best, most inovative piece of software ever written. When in truth, your average CS graduate student probably writes more sofisticated code in their sleep - and rarely utilizes it beyond personal use and gratification (and if they do really accomplish something truely innovative, the university would immediately latch on and suck the life out of it). So, what the majority of economists do since they really have no idea how software works or how it is created, is try to come up with a set of rules, using emperical data, to deal with this new entity in the economy. The only problem is how do you make rules for something that does not seem to respond to the major variables used in projecting future conditions. Open source software is just this. You cannot acurately estimate the amount of resources that have been put into developing a piece of open source software. Nor can you estimate the future value of a peice of open source software. So, they have absolutely no idea what it's value is. The problem is that economists need to start thinking of open source, and for that matter intellectual property, as something that is trading on a market who's value is not assesed in dollars. What is great about open source is that it helps turn ideas into a commodity. This thought scares the crap out of big business since 80-90% of thier workforce surrounds the notion that they are selling some extremely original idea. Without software patents, businesses would become incredibly efficient due to the enormous amount of competition in the market. Only those companies who truely knew what they were doing, would make it. But, I digress. This is no doubt an idealogical argument and I don't really believe it could or would happen. And, to be honest, probably would not be a good thing since millions of people would loose their jobs.The good news is that open source is here to stay. It is supported by thousands of people, universities and even coorporations. And, it helps fight the efforts of those philandering rober barrons who want to hord and profit from ideas that are not truely inovative. I don't think that all software will eventually be open source, but as long as the open source community exists and continually puts presure on organizations like Microsoft, things like the "dot-com bubble" will not happen again because the value of intellectual property will be kept at some sort of resonable level.
|
|||||||||||