| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Last paragraphLast paragraphPosted Oct 22, 2004 15:27 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)Parent article: Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times)
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."
(Log in to post comments)
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)
--
|
|
||||||||||||