Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet)
OnLamp has published a lengthy tome on open source as a purely economic phenomenon. "An updated open source mentality has profound implications for businesses looking to leverage open source in commercial ventures. Reevaluating the open source equation in economic terms presents a different takeaway. The commoditization of software and a gradual, long-term reduction in price have played far more important roles than previously recognized. Business strategy designed to leverage open source should focus more on economies of scale (in terms of user and developer bases) and less on pleasing a mythical, monolithic community."
(Log in to post comments)
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet) Posted Jan 13, 2006 15:33 UTC (Fri) by siliconshark (subscriber, #34687) [Link] Clearly there is community (call it whatever you want). But it is true that Linux is the first large scale Internet "product" and that it's this phenomenon that is changing the social and economic landscape.
ss
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet) Posted Jan 13, 2006 15:56 UTC (Fri) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] Well, I read the article.
I don't buy into the argument that "Open Software is merely a development
On other things. to *me* the community is the whole point.
The "community" is alive and well, and as for the 'big dogs' cashing in,
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet) Posted Jan 13, 2006 16:05 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Here's an anecdote from Richard Stallman: At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it. He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.) People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get? He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company. The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom. Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. That's why we stick to the term ``free software'' in the GNU Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and community are important for their own sake--not just for the convenience they bring--please join us in using the term ``free software''.
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet) Posted Jan 13, 2006 16:03 UTC (Fri) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] >Conventional wisdom says that powerful individuals drive open source by working against the grain to institute a methodology of sharing that would balance the power between software vendors and users.
>While this makes for an entertaining narrative, there is quantitative evidence to the contrary.
I think you could as well argue that the last 250 years of world history have been about technology and economic factors, not about the people.
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet) Posted Jan 14, 2006 10:46 UTC (Sat) by rmstar (guest, #3672) [Link] I think you could as well argue that the last 250 years of world history have been about technology and economic factors, not about the people.Yes. The point of view seems to be that humans, their motives, feelings, etc. are irelevant. It is all just economic factors. I wonder what is behind this (horrible, inhuman, and btw also mistaken) way of looking at the world. Some new derivative of facism?
Only economy? Posted Jan 15, 2006 2:25 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I guess it would not be too different from Marx's historical materialism. But even reading the wikipedia one gets the impression that Marx was much more intelligent than these feeble-minded pagans that advocate "open source" as an economic force.Let me offer an analogy. All buildings have to obey Newton's laws about motion and gravity; however there are infinite designs that comply with classical mechanics, from Egyptian pyramids to the modern proliferation of cubes. Saying that There is no art in architecture; classical mechanics determines all parameters in a building.is not only wrong, but also makes you look stupid. Likewise, all development must obey the simplest economic principles; after all it is an engineering (sometimes even industrial) activity. And yet there is so much more to it: saying that The commoditization of software and a gradual, long-term reduction in price have played far more important roles than previously recognized.is similarly an idiotic reductionism which is likely to get you nowhere. Yes, zero-cost software sells easier than expensive software; yes, freedom has a myriad practical advantages. But free software has manifested itself in many ways over the years. Just look at the number of foundations: Apache, Plone, Mozilla, FreeBSD, soon Fedora... and of course the Free Software Foundation. Some have fared better than others; a few have thrived; and a handful have just skyrocketed. No amount of economical babbling will explain what is self-evident to anyone in the community, e.g.: "share and share-alike" works better in practice than just "share"; if you don't volunteer nobody else will take up the task; helping your peer is also helping yourself. And anyway, Raymond has been writing about the same flawed assumptions for a long time, and better.
Sorry to break it to you... Posted Jan 15, 2006 14:56 UTC (Sun) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] ...but much of Marx's stuff was ghost-written.
No problem Posted Jan 15, 2006 19:04 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Congratulations to the ghosts, then, whoever they were.
Ghostwriting in the 19th century Posted Jan 19, 2006 4:28 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] The primary 'ghost' was Friedrich Engels, who got second-author credit onmost of their later joint work. This isn't very controversial. Karl Marx didn't write English particularly well when he was first employed to write for the New York Tribune, so he asked Engels to translate for him; and for six months while he was in a rough patch (three sick children, one died) he asked Engels to do the whole job (and commended him on having 'found the right tone'). Parts of some of these Marx/Engels columns were published under the by-line of the editor Horace Greeley. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1957... Later, other 'students' and benefactors of Marx were also pleased to help his work in such ways. In our day of carefully dated copyright attribution it might seem strange, but it wasn't so unusual in the 19th century for work to be published without every conceivable credit. It probably wouldn't happen in the free software world, but I'm sure there are people writing today who collaborate or ghostwrite privately like this.
It's naive, and offensive Posted Jan 13, 2006 16:09 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Of course there's a community. Not all the members are idealists, but each project has a community that is essential to its development, and the communities aggregate to form an overall Open Source community.But the really bad part of the paper is the rejection of the ethical dimension. The fact that Open Source / Free Software has an economic justification does not mean it does not have an ethical dimension, or need an ethical dimension in order to hold its communities together. The author is one of those who partake of the philosophy that ethics is irrelevant to business. This is the sort of utilitarianism that leads us to devalue workers everywhere, not just in the Open Source community. Bruce
It's naive, and offensive Posted Jan 13, 2006 16:42 UTC (Fri) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link] This is the sort of utilitarianism that leads us to devalue workers everywhere, not just in the Open Source community.I agree with everything you say, Bruce, except your use of the word Utilitarianism. As Bentham et al, used the term, it is Open Source that is utilitarian, and the unethical (or, at least, a-ethical) accumulation of profits in the hands of business owners is the antithesis of Utilitarianism.
It's naive, and offensive Posted Jan 13, 2006 16:47 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Oops. What's the right word, then?Thanks Bruce
It's naive, and offensive Posted Jan 13, 2006 17:16 UTC (Fri) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link] economic-a-lism?
It's naive, and offensive Posted Jan 13, 2006 17:28 UTC (Fri) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link] I don't know for sure, but it would share many moral and ethical precepts with Ayn Rand's Objectivism
It's naive, and offensive Posted Jan 14, 2006 0:10 UTC (Sat) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] This is spot on.
Economic rationalism Posted Jan 19, 2006 4:36 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] "the view that commercial activity ... represents a sphere of activity inwhich moral considerations, beyond the rule of business probity dictated by enlightened self-interest, have no role to play." -- John Quiggin Apparently it's a peculiarly Australian term. Maybe it will catch on elsewhere :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rationalism
Economic rationalism Posted Jan 20, 2006 6:37 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] I would say it's the economic parallel to Rational Anarchy
It's naive, and offensive Posted Jan 19, 2006 18:29 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Naked greed?
What about SCO? Posted Jan 13, 2006 16:51 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Think about the community's reaction to SCO. They have essentially destroyed what was left of that company by pointing out all that is wrong with the case and the company's pursuit of it. And after that, companies shouldn't be careful of the Open Source community?He really must have put blinders on while writing that article. Bruce
What about SCO? Posted Jan 13, 2006 18:14 UTC (Fri) by pfred1 (guest, #35195) [Link] But couldn't SCO have forseen their own fate before they decided to change their business model? I would have to say that SCO is one of the biggest believers in the Open Source community out there. And if that is so wasn't the Linux's communities reaction just a knee jerk reaction to that changed (software development to patent house) business model? I would not be suprised if the Linux communities reaction was not calculated by SCO before they put their changed business model into practice. The bridges burned in that debacle are ones that lead to places $CO never plans on visiting again. The rifts created are distances that $CO welcomes.
It all certianly seems to fit together well to me at anyrate.
What about SCO? Posted Jan 13, 2006 18:28 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] And if that is so wasn't the Linux's communities reaction just a knee jerk reaction to that changed (software development to patent house) business model?I'm afraid you don't understand the SCO case. They only own a few patents, and all are agreed that those are not significant ones. Their own claims are that it's a contract and copyright case, however they haven't been able to substantiate those claims. Their expected revenue would have been from copyright licensing. They might have planned to drop their software business at one time, but this is unclear. But in any case the community reaction destroyed all of their business whatever it was. Thanks Bruce
What about SCO? Posted Jan 14, 2006 3:20 UTC (Sat) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] I interpreted "software development to patent house" as a generic term for a transition from selling permission to access something that one has constructed (as in copyright licenses), to threatening prevention of access to something that someone else has constructed (as in patent licenses).
In the SCO case they seem to be trying to abuse copyright and some contracts to make it behave like a patent or two--and failing miserably, of course.
What about SCO? Posted Jan 14, 2006 3:55 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Well, you might have interpreted it that way, but I doubt if "pfred1" would have called the community's reaction "knee-jerk" if he had understood that it was something so egregious.Bruce
What about SCO? Posted Jan 14, 2006 12:06 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Argh. I do not think SCO alone can show the case clearly. Better to compare SCO and Rambus. Rambus is doing the same thing SCO does. Successfully. Why? Rambus is doing it in the area where community truly does not exist. That's why even after bogus claims and abuse companies are licensing new technologies from Rambus and Rambus is able to get money via bogus litigation. There are no friends and enimies in business - just business partners... Now SCO... When MySQL signed the deal with SCO and said "it's business as usual" they've lost some supporters. I was fan of MySQL for years. But now I'm switching to PostgreSQL where I can. And I'm not alone: since it's very clear to me that MySQL traded community support for some $$ - when will go so far as to sell my freedom ? Who knows... I hope to forget about MySQL by then...
What about SCO? Posted Jan 14, 2006 15:48 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I think the main difference between Rambus and SCO is that Rambus has valid law behind them and can thus win cases. Not just law, and they've played fast and loose with the rules of standards organizations, but they have the ability to convince a court to rule for them. It's always been clear that this was not the case with SCO, and it was the outright, blatant lies that SCO made about their case and purported property that caused the magnitude of outrage we saw.This is another reason to be very concerned about software patents. The folks with them can win. Bruce
What about SCO? Posted Jan 15, 2006 8:24 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Nope. Rambus does not have law on it's side. What it does have is lack of community. When Samsung decides to settle out-of-court and buy bogus license for DDR it becomes hard for Micron to prove in court that such license is indeed bigus. But why Samsung bought this bogus license in first place ? Easy: that's not community, that's business - SONY will not buy argument "we did the right thing" as replacement for RDRAM modules! So Samsung has no choice - it can not fight Rambus at that time. With community - it's different. We are not business. We do not have responsibility to maximize profits. Thus we can abandon SCO - even if it does not make sense from business viewpoint! We can convince our friends to abandon 1stInternet - even it does not make sense from business viewpoint! What we can not do - is to convince everyone to abandon Microsoft or Oracle - they are too big and users are to entrapped. This is big problem for our community, true. But the only reason tiny company like Rambus can fuck the whole industry with it's bogus patents is the fact that it's industry, not community - it can not decide to just abandon Rambus...
What about SCO? Posted Jan 15, 2006 16:41 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Rambus has a legal theory that would allow them to collect damages. SCO does not. There's not much justice in the Rambus case, and Rambus has played fast and loose with JDEDEC's rules - because JEDEC didn't take the trouble to build legally-enforcible rules.IBM could have licensed from SCO and told the community "it's just business". Surely they aren't concerned much with the community, their pursuit of legal expansions of software patenting in Europe and elsewhere goes plainly against that community. One or two other companies did license from SCO. But for IBM to do that in this case would have told all others that they are easy to extort with a case that has no legal theory. Thanks Bruce
What about SCO? Posted Jan 14, 2006 20:28 UTC (Sat) by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104) [Link] I think you are confusing MySQL AB (the company) with MySQL (the software). It was the company that made that deal, but if it turns out that they were trying to sell us out, then we could just take the software and move on. That is the beauty of free software.
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet) Posted Jan 13, 2006 17:43 UTC (Fri) by daney (subscriber, #24551) [Link] Many of the things the author says are undoubtedly true. However,part of what he says is that only in widely used software is there an economic incentive for the open source model.
If his arguments were correct this would mean that there would be very
My counter assertion would be that often if there are only two
As to the existence of open source communities, stating here that they
Spirit of community Posted Jan 13, 2006 20:21 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I think they are not that much different than non-software communities in business (i.e. a bunch of executives going golfing).I would say they are similar in some respects, and very different in others. The main difference is one of competition versus cooperation: executives tend to be selfish, and only help when they can get something back; while in free software there is a spirit of doing something for others because we are all better off this way, or just lending a hand wherever is needed. This may seem idealistic, seen from outside; but it just works. Even with big corporations -- those that really dig it are not afraid of contributing code and even releasing one product after another as free software. Roger Waters said it better: "Together we stand, divided we fall".
Spirit of community Posted Jan 14, 2006 10:58 UTC (Sat) by arkm (subscriber, #415) [Link]
The main difference is one of competition versus cooperation: executives tend to be selfishOne of the selfish reasons can be not going to prison. Antitrust laws can be harsh. Business competitors discussing their product/marketing/sales plans can be a big NO NO. The executives of say, Redhat and Mandriva, could probably sit down together and discuss all kinds of things with out antitrust problems. I would think using the GPL makes running afoul with antitrust laws very difficult to achieve. But, I would still want to have some lawyers around.
Spirit of community Posted Jan 19, 2006 5:03 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Hey, I know which side my bread's buttered!What I've *received* from the Free Software community is worth a million times what I've actually *contributed*. I've spent a bare minimum, and the reward has been huge. The same goes for most of the businesses that have employed me over the years. BTW I'm sure Abraham Lincoln said "Together we stand, divided we fall" before Roger Waters did. And for all I know he wasn't the first.
"together we stand, divided we fall" -- not Lincoln after all? Posted Jan 19, 2006 5:34 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] ...Or perhaps not. Wikiquote doesn't have it, but it does have a speechreferring to the United States as "a house divided against itself", after the Gospels (eg. Mark 3:25: "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand"). Certainly "together we stand, divided we fall" was a trade union rally chant and a motto for African American community groups in the 1950s, somewhat earlier than _The Wall_. This just in from the infamous Google Book Search: The earliest (mis-?)attribution to Lincoln I can find is from 1955, in "Price-support Program: United States Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry". Somehow I *doubt* that a US Senate committee report is the source of its popularisation among the trade union movement :-)
"*United* we stand, divided we fall" Posted Jan 19, 2006 5:59 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] The closest I can get to an 'origin' is either Aesop or "The LibertySong" (1768), written by John Dickinson (1732-1808), neither of which can be considered to have coined the exact phrase (whether "United" or "Together"). http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/kyseal.htm Ah well.
driving forces Posted Jan 13, 2006 17:49 UTC (Fri) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link] The author of that article is obviously one of those who simply can't imagine anyone doing anything except for cash.
However, he is probably right that "idealism" per se is not the driving force of the movement. The driving force is the fact that the software giants are trying to keep there customers enslaved with the historic model of EULAs and proprietary licenses while the social/economic conditions of today would favor free exchange of information.
Not everyone realizes this fact though. That is why a community of vocal "idealist activists" is necessary to make the majority slowly realize its potential, and how it is put in chains.
A similar situation as at the end of the 18th century when the nobility in France tried suppress the rising bourgeoisie. The economic power of the bourgeoisie was the driving force, and the "community" of those days were the Jacobins. Let's hope Linus won't end up on the Guillotine...
Well, carried away too far. I hope I made my point.
driving forces Posted Jan 14, 2006 8:06 UTC (Sat) by hal9000 (guest, #27639) [Link] Dead on. There is another facet here, that is technology facilitates change in society. When "the internet" popped up it allowed thousands of people to realize they could work together to solve a problem, resulting in source code. The big software houses could now be forgotten as providers of common solutions. Much of the actions of SCO and Microsoft are desperately trying to convince people a efficient or favorable way of developing software does not exist, will not flourish and will not replace them. Unfortunately for them, time and change can not be stopped, more people will collaborate over the internet (or whatever networking technologies the future brings). Other examples of technology colliding with the old institutions of society include VoIP vs. Ma-Bell (and friends), VoIP/SMS/Email/Blogs vs. Censorship, p2p vs. Intellectual Property and Open Source vs. Software Patents.
Carr in the topic Posted Jan 13, 2006 19:25 UTC (Fri) by gallir (subscriber, #5735) [Link] Do they get it?http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/01/the_amorality_o...
Carr in the topic Posted Jan 13, 2006 23:37 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] The article you posted is an excellent example of two worldviews talking past each other (comparing the article to the comments that follow).
The community within Open Source Posted Jan 14, 2006 1:04 UTC (Sat) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] Many of the responses here are pointing to existing, vibrant communities as evidence against the article's assertion. I don't think they count against that assertion.
It is entirely feasible to buy into the "open source" message with no hint of community. Open source speaks only of the self-interest in allowing many people to improve one's software, and using software that has been widely reviewed and improved. None of this requires fostering or participating in a community; one can get much benefit from "open source" without caring a jot for other people.
The communities where people help each other willingly, where people help each other *even when it's less convenient*, have much more to do with free software than open source. It's a necessity of free software that all others have the same freedom as oneself; thus, those who realise they want everyone to have the same benefit are advocates of free software.
The community is free software. The selfish and greedy have no place in that community. They can, however, find ample benefit in open source. For this reason I promote the free software community, even when it's less than convenient to do so.
I want the free software community to grow to the point where the selfish and greedy have no place anywhere near it, not even on the open source outskirts.
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet) Posted Jan 14, 2006 22:31 UTC (Sat) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] I think the article writer misses the big picture. Internet, and itsderivative, Free/Open Source, are counter strikes from Science against Business. Science ideals = progress and sharing of information Business ideals = greed and increasing your ownership
Not science against business Posted Jan 15, 2006 15:04 UTC (Sun) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] Engineering against capitalism-gone-wild.The engineers (those of an engineering temperament, rather than those with a degree in Engineering) are solving a problem. Greed has made capitalism the problem that they most need to solve. Self-inflicted wound, my friends, you’re on your own. One can do business without being greedy, so they’re not fighting “business” as such, just senseless, short-sighted greed. And it’s engineering rather than science doing the work because scientists are often... not that well tied down to pragmatic realities, whereas if engineers play fast and loose with reality, people die.
Not science against business Posted Jan 19, 2006 19:05 UTC (Thu) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] My main point about the article was that Open Source working like internet is old news and the article writer had completely missed the sosiological and legal aspects. (nobody should be so dumb as to think that they wouldn't/couldn't have effects at economic scale) Especially GPL and the ideas behind it have been very important. If Linux hadn't used GPL and BSD wouldn't have had the legal troubles that it had at the beginning of 90's, Open Source might not be where it's now, because then BSD with BSD license would have been the most popular free Unix. BSD ideals differ quite a bit from Linux/GPL:
Without this invitation to join in, Open Source wouldn't have achieved the popularity it now has. When young/idealistic developers in the early 90's looked at how they would license their code, well... BSD license really doesn't encourage increase of Open Source like GPL does (i.e. match the ideals of the developers) and I think without GPL and Linus' example of its use, many developers would have chosen their own licenses. End result could have been legal quackmire where code of one project is not compatible with another. If Open Source wouldn't have spread as fast as it did + projects been compatible with each other (+ FSF being there to help), it wouldn't have appeared as good contendor for Windows (at server side) and therefore commercial investments into it would have been less etc (vicious circle instead of a virtuous one). With BSD as the major free Unix, Apple OSX might have happened a bit earlier though, but Apple's not that much very pro-Open Source (in the sense of new contributions instead of just using and sometimes improving existing projects). :-) The idea that Open Source would grow just because people think that "We could as well Open Source our SW because we cannot profit from the source ourself" is absurd. Open Sourceing code is a lot of work:
Without something like GPL encouraging the "potluck profits" your way, this would never work.
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet) Posted Jan 15, 2006 17:08 UTC (Sun) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] On your first point:
Science ideals = progress and sharing of information
I completely concurr;
However, on the second point,
I don't buy it (heh)
Monopolistic ideals =
Perhaps.
However, there is a lot about the 'business' approach
However, there is something really rotten and sick in
Business is just another corrupt human endeavor, there is
There Is No Open Source Community (O'ReillyNet) Posted Jan 19, 2006 18:49 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I've been recently coming to the conclusion that the problem is the legal requirement that profit come above everything else--that investors' profit trumps (no pun intended) everything else, such as employee health, safety and quality of life, quality of products, customer support, ethical and environmental questions, etc. These things are only considered at all because if they weren't, profits would go down. If somehow they can be mollified with minimum efforts, that's all that will be invested in them.
Somehow this needs to change. How? I have no idea. But I think it has to come from within individual people rather than from outside--the community can do a lot to show that helping your neighbor is the better path, but if people are addicted to individual power and selfishness, that community example doesn't mean anything to them (if anything it is seen as a dangerous bunch of radicals which need to be squashed like a bug).
Sigh...
Hey! Posted Jan 20, 2006 6:55 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] You can't just come into a meeting and say "bugs"!
|
|||||||||||