The Ethics of making money from Linux

[Goober]

Ok, I have a question which has been bugging me for awhile. Let me give you the background. I am in first year Business at my local College, and we have been given a project to create a fictional business from the ground up. One of the ideas that I had was a Linux Installation Service, which is just as it sounds, a service that would install and set up Linux on people's computers, show them how to use it, and give them technical support, for money. Ultimately the idea wasn't chosen, but it was at least considered.

But then I got to thinking (ya, I know, overactive imagination). Is it ethical to make money from Linux, even though it is supposed to be open sourced and fully free? I mean, the company I had in mind above would charge money just for the installation of Linux, not the actual Linux OS, but is that ethical? I don't mean legal, obviously its legal, but ethically, is it right to charge money for something that is supposed to be free?

[karuptdata]

I believe that it isnt morally and ethically wrong you arent charging customers for the actual product just for support if something breaks or if they break something but who am i to say..just my opinion:)

[Galoot]

Of course it's ethical! You're performing a service.

Incidentally, Mark Shuttleworth is hoping to make money supporting Ubuntu (I wonder how that's working out) and nobody's complaining. :)

Read about his business plan (http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/04/1859255) here.

[panickedthumb]

Its totally ethical, and you aren't violating any license.

You could burn ubuntu cds and sell them for 1000 bucks a pop if you wanted. Nobody would buy them and you'd be looked down upon, but you would be violating no license.

As far as what you're speculating, it's all for the service. You aren't charging a penny for the software, unless you have an added cost of like 25 cents a cd to burn them a copy.

[Goober]

Ya, I guys you guys are right. As long as I didn't charge money for the product, then the service, then its ethical.

I read through that link from Shuttleworth, but I still don't understand how he will make money. If he doesn't seel Ubuntu, then where does the profits come from? And where did he get 20m to go in Space?

[joshuapurcell]

Ok, I have a question which has been bugging me for awhile. Let me give you the background. I am in first year Business at my local College, and we have been given a project to create a fictional business from the ground up. One of the ideas that I had was a Linux Installation Service, which is just as it sounds, a service that would install and set up Linux on people's computers, show them how to use it, and give them technical support, for money. Ultimately the idea wasn't chosen, but it was at least considered.

But then I got to thinking (ya, I know, overactive imagination). Is it ethical to make money from Linux, even though it is supposed to be open sourced and fully free? I mean, the company I had in mind above would charge money just for the installation of Linux, not the actual Linux OS, but is that ethical? I don't mean legal, obviously its legal, but ethically, is it right to charge money for something that is supposed to be free?
There is absolutely nothing unethical about making money from providing a service based on open-source software (unless you think it is unethical for the hostess at a restaurant to make money for showing you where to sit when you come in to eat).

This whole idea of it being unethical or something is kinda what I was griping about in this post:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=67345

It's the whole debate between free vs. open software. The most interested party in this debate from what I can see is the GNU group (www.gnu.org).

[GeneralZod]

Ya, I guys you guys are right. As long as I didn't charge money for the product, then the service, then its ethical.


Dude, there's nothing wrong with charging for the product itself. RMS himself once sold copies of GNU utilities for fairly hefty fees, and in this instance you were paying for the software itself (plus I guess paying a little for the service of having it written to tape). Free Software is only supposed to be "Free" with a big "F" - pretty much everything else, including monetary cost, is secondary. In short, there's not even the slightest ethical dilemma here from my point of view, and I'm sure RMS would agree :)

[Leif]

Ya, I guys you guys are right. As long as I didn't charge money for the product, then the service, then its ethical.

I read through that link from Shuttleworth, but I still don't understand how he will make money. If he doesn't seel Ubuntu, then where does the profits come from? And where did he get 20m to go in Space?

He hopes his profits will come from selling services for ubuntu. If ubuntu becomes big and takes a good share of the desktops/workstations around the world, there'll be good money in providing support/extras for it, and who better to do it that the official ubuntu foundation ?

[Kvark]

Free software is knowledge just like mathematical formalas and knowledge is not property. But researching new formulas or teaching someone math is a job and you usually get paid for working.

You can charge money to teach someone a mathematical formula. You can even charge money for a math book. But you can't have monopoly on a formula. You can't say "You have to learn it from me, because nobody else is allowed to teach you about it." or "You better not use this formula in new equations. I'm the only one who is allowed to modify or extend this formula.".

In the same manner you can charge money for installation and support of Free software. You can even charge money for the CDs or download bandwidth. But you can't say "You have to get it from me, Nobody else is allowed to sell this program to you." or "You better not add any new features to this program. I'm the only one who is allowed to modify or add to this program."

[Galoot]

And where did he get 20m to go in Space?He founded Thawte Consulting. Four years later, VeriSign bought his company for $575 Million. Check Google (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=shuttleworth+thawte+verisign&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) for more.

[Lux Perpetua]

Free software is knowledge just like mathematical formalas and knowledge is not property. I think this is a good analogy. It's sad, however, when you realize that knowledge can be property, legally speaking. Remember the LZW/GIF controversy? Unisys owned the patent to a particular algorithm (the LZW algorithm) and decided to enforce it. (That patent has now expired in the U.S.) N.B.: an algorithm is just a form of mathematical knowledge.

[xequence]

I think its fine to make money from linux. I aggree with the way Red Hat does it, but not the way Linspire does it.

[aysiu]

I think its fine to make money from linux. I aggree with the way Red Hat does it, but not the way Linspire does it. I don't know if I disagree ideologically with the way Linspire does it--I'm just not going to pay for it, personally. A CD I might pay for; but I'm not going to pay for the convenience of downloading free software--not even Windows users have to do that! They can charge for it, though, if they want. Clearly there's a sizeable chunk of the Linux using population that's willing to pay for one-click installation (CNR) as opposed to not paying for two-click installation (Synaptic).

[papangul]

I think its fine to make money from linux. I aggree with the way Red Hat does it, but not the way Linspire does it.
I might pay for linspire but won't pay for redhat, personal preference.

[majikstreet]

I personally don't think it's right to sell linux. Selling support is fine with me, but I don't get why someone would pay for support when you could go to a forum for it :)

It's just like giving out free headphones and then saying for five dollars more you can get a one year warrenty....

[Leif]

I personally don't think it's right to sell linux. Selling support is fine with me, but I don't get why someone would pay for support when you could go to a forum for it :) .

err.. because not everyone wants to wait god knows how long before someone on a forum answers their problem (assuming that someone ever will) ? because companies need professional support ? using linux is not just about getting everything for free you know.

[aysiu]

I personally don't think it's right to sell linux. Selling support is fine with me, but I don't get why someone would pay for support when you could go to a forum for it :) Individuals may not feel the need to pay for support, but corporations and businesses will insist on it and eye any software provider suspiciously who does not charge for its product. Many businesses (rightly or wrongly) have a pay-for-what-you-get mentality that assumes anything free cannot be a quality product.

[Leif]

I personally don't think it's right to sell linux. Selling support is fine with me, but I don't get why someone would pay for support when you could go to a forum for it :)

It's just like giving out free headphones and then saying for five dollars more you can get a one year warrenty....

also, you're ignoring the importance of commercial entities in the linux world. yes, a lot of the work for linux comes from volunteers, and it's fantastic, but a good amount of work and polish also comes from developers who get paid for it. if business models built around free as in speech linux prosper, linux will thrive.

[Galoot]

Selling support is fine with me, but I don't get why someone would pay for support when you could go to a forum for it :)
A lot of people who are good at something specific boggle at the idea that someone else would pay to have it done for them. It amazes me that someone would fork over money to have their sink unclogged or to have a fence built when they could just do (or lern how to do it) it themselves.

That's just the way it is.