Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) [LWN.net]

Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times)

Posted Oct 22, 2004 23:20 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
Parent article: Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times)

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.

(Log in to post comments)

Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times)

Posted Oct 23, 2004 12:27 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (subscriber, #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.