Why open source?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There are many people on the Internet that demand that all software be free to use and redistribute, like in the GPL. They think that the Linux kernel is the perfect example of collaborative effort to produce a superior product, and so on.

I'd like to question their reasoning here. The simple question is: How can you expect someone to spend hours of their time producing a product for you, with no personal benefit to them?

I think that the Mozilla Corporation (yes, it's a corporation now) is a great example of free software with a commercial base. It's free, but they have paid employees, meaning that Firefox and other products can be better, as they have full-timers to work on it more than a bunch of spare-time contributors could. In my opinion, this is a great idea--sell your main product for free, and then make money off of other things. Of course, it doesn't earn as much money as a purely commercial approach, but you get a much larger userbase.
Google has the same tactics. For the end-user, nearly everything is free; all of the services are supported by advertisements.

In fact, I think this model is better than purely commercial or purely free software. Commercial software gives you less of a base of users (they'll migrate towards something free), while purely free software has lower quality (not all of the time, just generally speaking) because it doesn't have full-time employees working on it, just a scattered base of contributors.

So, what's your reason for wanting open-source software? Sometimes I think it's mainly because people want everything to be free....

[mstlyevil]

There are many people on the Internet that demand that all software be free to use and redistribute, like in the GPL. They think that the Linux kernel is the perfect example of collaborative effort to produce a superior product, and so on.

I'd like to question their reasoning here. The simple question is: How can you expect someone to spend hours of their time producing a product for you, with no personal benefit to them?

I think that the Mozilla Corporation (yes, it's a corporation now) is a great example of free software with a commercial base. It's free, but they have paid employees, meaning that Firefox and other products can be better, as they have full-timers to work on it more than a bunch of spare-time contributors could. In my opinion, this is a great idea--sell your main product for free, and then make money off of other things. Of course, it doesn't earn as much money as a purely commercial approach, but you get a much larger userbase.
Google has the same tactics. For the end-user, nearly everything is free; all of the services are supported by advertisements.

In fact, I think this model is better than purely commercial or purely free software. Commercial software gives you less of a base of users (they'll migrate towards something free), while purely free software has lower quality (not all of the time, just generally speaking) because it doesn't have full-time employees working on it, just a scattered base of contributors.

So, what's your reason for wanting open-source software? Sometimes I think it's mainly because people want everything to be free....

I think you would be surprised to find most users on this forum believe that free software and propietary software can peacefully co-exist. More companies are using OSS software to help them develop their products for the commercial segments of their bussiness. Netscape created Mozilla just for this purpose. Sun created Open Office to develop for future versions of Star Office. Also Ubuntu was created to not only be free and open but to generate bussiness for Canonical offering bussiness and support services. People want something that is secure and that works for them and most do not care if that is an open source solution or propietary.

[tufkakf]

1. You are talking about free software, not open source. The idea behind free software is that softwar should be free (as in freedom), while the premise of open source is basicly that open source is a more effective developement model.

2. You misunderstand free software. It's not about cost free, it's about not restricting the rights of the users. So free software can of course be commercial and very often is and in fact the GNU project even encourages free software developers to make as much money with their software as possible.

3. I'm a big fan of free software and I prefer free software to propietary software. However, that does not mean that I expect someone to work for free, on the contrary, it means I'm extremely grateful to those providing all this great free software I can use.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think you would be surprised to find most users on this forum believe that free software and propietary software can peacefully co-exist. More companies are using OSS software to help them develop their products for the commercial segments of their bussiness. Netscape created Mozilla just for this purpose. Sun created Open Office to develop for future versions of Star Office. Also Ubuntu was created to not only be free and open but to generate bussiness for Canonical offering bussiness and support services. People want something that is secure and that works for them and most do not care if that is an open source solution or propietary.
Yes, I understand this. But there are quite a few people who create entirely free software without being attached to a corporation. While some of the best free software may be attached to a large company or have other sources of revenue, there are many others that aren't.

Take phpBB for example. It is quite literally created during spare time, and is totally free. There are people who spend hours supporting other phpBB users, and creating modifications, without getting a cent for it. What's the motivation? If I saw that much goodwill off of the internet, the world would be a lot nicer than it is now.

[GeneralZod]

Take phpBB for example. It is quite literally created during spare time, and is totally free. There are people who spend hours supporting other phpBB users, and creating modifications, without getting a cent for it. What's the motivation? If I saw that much goodwill off of the internet, the world would be a lot nicer than it is now.

The sheer love of creating stuff, making a name and reputation for yourself (i.e. - ego! :)), the simple joy of seeing someone using and enjoying something you've made - the list goes on.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

2. You misunderstand free software. It's not about cost free, it's about not restricting the rights of the users. So free software can of course be commercial and very often is and in fact the GNU project even encourages free software developers to make as much money with their software as possible.
I meant free as in monetarily, not freedom. Sorry, I should have made that clear.

[majikstreet]

The sheer love of creating stuff, making a name and reputation for yourself (i.e. - ego! :)), the simple joy of seeing someone using and enjoying something you've made - the list goes on.
yeah.

Why do people volunteer? Same reasons.

Because they can. Keep questioning people, and eventually they will stop developing software for free.

[23meg]

There are many people on the Internet that demand that all software be free to use and redistribute, like in the GPL. That's the Free Software (note the caps) camp. And then there's the Open Source camp, and then other camps.

I'd like to question their reasoning here. The simple question is: How can you expect someone to spend hours of their time producing a product for you, with no personal benefit to them?I can expect that they do what they do for public benefit, because of the fact that having a community that shares information and the free tools used to produce and process it is more important than commercial interests. And these people exist. It's due to years of efforts concentrated around that way of thinking that I can write these words on Ubuntu.

I think that the Mozilla Corporation (yes, it's a corporation now) is a great example of free software with a commercial base. It's free, but they have paid employees, meaning that Firefox and other products can be better, as they have full-timers to work on it more than a bunch of spare-time contributors could. InMozilla Corporation is a subsidary of the Mozilla Foundation initiated to be able to handle the revenue-related operations of the foundation, since the foundation isn't taxable. It's a good example of orphaned open source software backed by a commercial body. Ubuntu is also free, but put together by paid developers, while a lot of the upstream development is done by "bunches of spare-time contributors" and other sorts of more dedicated unpaid developers. And the paid developers are major contributors to many of the major upstream projects that Ubuntu depends on as well, so it's not really black and white; it's a mix, and a good one at that.

My reasons for wanting open source:

- It's a vastly superior development model than closed development
- It allows public contribution and modification for own purposes
- It motivates making everything Freely available


Google has the same tactics. For the end-user, nearly everything is free; all of the services are supported by advertisements.Not really same; Mozilla's products aren't ad supported and most of Google's are not open source.

purely free software has lower quality (not all of the time, just generally speaking) because it doesn't have full-time employees working on it, just a scattered base of contributors.
This is very far from being true.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I can expect that they do what they do for public benefit, because of the fact that having a community that shares information and the free tools used to produce and process it is more important than commercial interests. And these people exist. It's due to years of efforts concentrated around that way of thinking that I can write these words on Ubuntu.
Indeed. If only more people did things for public benefit...


My reasons for wanting open source:

- It's a vastly superior development model than closed development
I should point out that phpBB is open source (GPL) but it doesn't actually allow any public contributions to the base code. (It makes them less efficient, but they have their reasons...)


Not really same; Mozilla's products aren't ad supported.
Well, I meant that both were supported by different revenue sources than the software itself.


This is very far from being true.
I'll admit that most free software is very good quality. However, paid software can't get away with being low quality (or nobody will buy it, and please don't make references to Windows), while with free software, there is little obligation to perfection. If you're seeking profit, you're more likely to try to make your software the best.

[tufkakf]

I'll admit that most free software is very good quality. However, paid software can't get away with being low quality (or nobody will buy it, and please don't make references to Windows), while with free software, there is little obligation to perfection.

Well, there is an amazing amount of terrible commercial software out there, so your theory doesn't seem too convincing.



If you're seeking profit, you're more likely to try to make your software the best.
Nope. You'll try to do what increases your profit, which doesn't translate into making better software automatically. On the contrary, cutting down developement costs for example might increase your profits, leading to worse software.

[23meg]

I should point out that phpBB is open source (GPL) but it doesn't actually allow any public contributions to the base code. (It makes them less efficient, but they have their reasons...)To each their own.

with free software, there is little obligation to perfection. If you're seeking profit, you're more likely to try to make your software the best.In very rough terms I tend to think that proprietary software slows down innovation and degrades overall quality because companies are forced to sell copies of their products to keep existing and to do so they dumb down their software in a populist manner, and hold back their innovation potential to sell it part by part, asking for upgrade payments for each part.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, there is an amazing amount of terrible commercial software out there, so your theory doesn't seem too convincing.
Okay, I'm probably wrong. But whatever.


Nope. You'll try to do what increases your profit, which doesn't translate into making better software automatically. On the contrary, cutting down developement costs for example might increase your profits, leading to worse software.
And less users.


I should point out that the reason I started this thread is because I'm currently creating my own commercial PHP software. I don't intend to make it open source (unless I find another source of revenue) because I have an education to pay for. So I thought I'd like to hear other people's views on open-source software.

[aysiu]

I should point out that the reason I started this thread is because I'm currently creating my own commercial PHP software. I don't intend to make it open source (unless I find another source of revenue) because I have an education to pay for. So I thought I'd like to hear other people's views on open-source software. Can't you charge for open source? Am I mistaken?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There really is no point to, because that will let others redistribute it. If people can redistribute it, why charge for it?

Unless, of course, there's another license I haven't seen that doesn't allow redistribution but is "open source."

[aysiu]

There really is no point to, because that will let others redistribute it. If people can redistribute it, why charge for it? Because yours will constantly be in development and getting better. Random spinoffs need to have some reason to exist (is someone developing them?). Which do you think people use more--Firefox or Netscape 8.0? Netscape is based off of Firefox code, but Firefox gets all the development and the immediate patches and such.

I remember someone once tried to make a cost-free version of Linspire (which is open source), and it never took off.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Because yours will constantly be in development and getting better. Random spinoffs need to have some reason to exist (is someone developing them?). Which do you think people use more--Firefox or Netscape 8.0? Netscape is based off of Firefox code, but Firefox gets all the development and the immediate patches and such.

I remember someone once tried to make a cost-free version of Linspire (which is open source), and it never took off.
I see your point. I suppose that would mean that as long as development was sufficiently fast and the product continously high-quality (and there was good support), I could make it open-source without worrying about forks. But wouldn't that be just the same as releasing it under a proprietary license?

And Netscape is also free. Comparing that to Firefox really isn't valid, because neither are paid software--if Firefox cost money, I know I wouldn't use it.

[Vlammetje]

It wouldn't be the same, because a proprietary license works as copyright. Nobody is allowed to touch or work on the code unless you say so. Essentially, you'll be on your own to keep the development cycle up :)

And while netscape and FF are both free (in cost) there is still a difference... firefox has literally thousands of people contribuiting little bits of code that they think is relevant. This helps the overall FF project to thrive.

[majikstreet]

You can charge.. You can make your own liscense you know, like something like you can't redistruibute this but you can modify it as long as it is only available to paying customers or something. (AFAIK!)

[aysiu]

I see your point. I suppose that would mean that as long as development was sufficiently fast and the product continously high-quality (and there was good support), I could make it open-source without worrying about forks. But wouldn't that be just the same as releasing it under a proprietary license? It's not the same at all. Open source allows others to help you improve the software and it instills in your customers the confidence that if you personally ever abandon the project that someone else will probably take up the reins and can do so, since the source code is open.

You may be interested in some kind of modified GPL, though. Take a look at Transgaming's license (http://www.transgaming.com/license.php?source=1), which has both open source and restricted components.

[egon spengler]

I meant free as in monetarily, not freedom. Sorry, I should have made that clear.


Well in that case you shouldn't have equated gratis software with open source software. While the two are not mutually exclusive terms they are two different things

[rjwood]

I think a beginning place to ponder is two of the same programs. One for people who are willing to or can pay-without advertising. The other with advertising and free to users. I am constantly bothered by companies that are making money off the user when they are just delivering the user to the advertisers. There should be a choice. Like network tv. Over-the-air broadcast are free because of the advertising money being made. Slowly we have been conditioned to believe that we should be paying for this advertisment.

What I like about open-source is it is contrary to the advertising approach. I do believe money needs to be made. I am led to believe that donations are not where they need to be for these ventures. As I go around the internet, I see so much being done out of the "love" for programing. I try to donate when I can but, there is just so much of it. You can be donated to death if your not careful.

The two guy's from google are the ones to watch IMO as they seem to be very innovative. I like what I have been reading about their perspective and approach to all this.

Anyway, just my opinion....

[commodore]

Materialism sucks. Real computer people (free software developers) don't care about things.

[rjwood]

Materialism sucks. Real computer people (free software developers) don't care about things.

A computer is a thing!!;)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm going to drag this thread up again and ask another question.

I've seen people (not on this forum, places like Neowin) saying that downloading music (illegally) should be legal. Sure, that's "open" in a sense, but why are we starting to migrate away from giving credit (money) to the author? With software, we have a nice About box to advertise the developer in, but music doesn't have that. And musicians are out there to create money.

So why are people going bonkers over making things "open" when it's really not sustainable without income?

[mstlyevil]

I'm going to drag this thread up again and ask another question.

I've seen people (not on this forum, places like Neowin) saying that downloading music (illegally) should be legal. Sure, that's "open" in a sense, but why are we starting to migrate away from giving credit (money) to the author? With software, we have a nice About box to advertise the developer in, but music doesn't have that. And musicians are out there to create money.

So why are people going bonkers over making things "open" when it's really not sustainable without income?

The people that argue that you should be able to download any song for free are usually people who are cheapscates who just want to legitimize their theft. If you told these same people that they had to work for free they would be the first to cry foul. Most people do not expect a music artist to produce their work for free. Those that do just want something for nothing without any consequenses whatsoever. True freedom is about a person being able to have control over their own creation. If a person wants to share their work for free then I applaud that. If that same person wants to charge for their work then the consumer has the freedom to determine if they are willing to pay what the artist wants. The consumer does not have a right to tell someone what they have to do with their work. They also do not have to buy or listen to it either.

[briancurtin]

Materialism sucks. Real computer people (free software developers) don't care about things.
same with true "punks"
yet they are all over the internet...you know, having things, using the internet, etc

[tufkakf]

I'm going to drag this thread up again and ask another question.

I've seen people (not on this forum, places like Neowin) saying that downloading music (illegally) should be legal. Sure, that's "open" in a sense, but why are we starting to migrate away from giving credit (money) to the author? With software, we have a nice About box to advertise the developer in, but music doesn't have that. And musicians are out there to create money.

So why are people going bonkers over making things "open" when it's really not sustainable without income?
Again, I think you are making a very simple argument about something that is a lot more complex.

First off, being able to download music for free does not equal no income for the artists. For example, there are people arguing that artists do in fact profit from filesharing, as especiall unknown artists can get popular because of it, which in turn will boost their CD sales.

You are also making the mistake of thinking that the way it is now is the only way an artist can make money from his work. But this of course also is not true. For example there are people arguing for a kind of cultural tax that would finance artists and in turn would make downloading legal.

You also seem to fail to draw a distinction between making a copy for your own personal use and making money by selling other peoples works. Something completely different.

Finally, this is part of a very fundamental debate about how far copyright should go, what rights consumers should have and especially what purpose copyright serves and if it is still serving this purpose.

[sonny]

First off, being able to download music for free does not equal no income for the artists. For example, there are people arguing that artists do in fact profit from filesharing, as especiall unknown artists can get popular because of it, which in turn will boost their CD sales.
To be honest.. artists don't get rich from cd sales... the companies that sale the cd's do. Artists only get about 1 dollar for each cd sold, so if an artist sells 5 million copies it gives them only 5 millon dollars... wich is nothing compare to what they earn in a concert tour, a publicity contract with Pepsi or Gatorade... you can even ask Beckham what he prefers... geting pay for every soccer season, or every ad from nike or rebook... artists are not well paid for their main bussiness: CD sales.

The only ones fighting the P2P technology are companies, and artists have to go with them... because they think that if the company kicks them out is the end of their careers... wich is obviously wrong... the problem is that all the lirycs belong to the companies, and not every artist writes his/her own songs, they depend of the talent from the companies' writers.

The fact is thay they DON'T KNOW about creative commons... and the music companies will fight for their ignorance.

[TechSonic]

The sheer love of creating stuff, making a name and reputation for yourself (i.e. - ego! :)), the simple joy of seeing someone using and enjoying something you've made - the list goes on.


Yep.

[Virogenesis]

big Opensource projects are generaly high quality.
The release cycle is moving all the time as we speak big change is being made.
I use opendsource not because of its price but because the delevopment is light years ahead.
Look at apache its generaly secure so exploits exist but they are usually in a module and also patched extremely quick.
As for downloading music its wrong but to be perfectly honest you are ripping off the people who rip off the bands.
Bands DON'T get rich off of cd sales and I think you'll findb that bands prefer you to come watch them play not only does that bring in more money but it is also the reason why they are musicians nothing beats a good live night.
Memories are made through live shows not cds and I believe that is what a band wants.
As for punks owning computers well thats a bit of a naive attitude to have considering you can have a computer and help out with opensource projects to define a punk is somewhat hard since punk ideas are so confused.
Compare the clash and the pistols and you'll understand what I mean.


Heres my reasons for using opensource.
*Freedom - If ever I need to change code I can do
*Release cycle - Computers should not be static they should be like a river. Flowing all the time.
*Better good - Opensource agrees to many of my political views. I never felt comfortable using a OS thats supports capitalism to its purest form.
*People - the community that drives opensource is fantasic.
*Great networking support - These days the internet is big and having a network capable computers helps.
*UNIX - I love the idea of unix like everything is a file and the way you can mount extra drives.
*GNU - The people behind gnu are fantasic. Richard Stallman believes what he is doing is for the better good hes someone we could learn alot from and one of the most respected humans alive.
*Productivy - I find my linux box works for me the way I want it to. I like having the driving seat simple as that.
*Helping your neighboor - I find that you should help others in life and opensource allows for that. Someday I might know how to program and I might be able to help out. Until then I can enjoy using the software and praise those who give their time for me and others.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The people that argue that you should be able to download any song for free are usually people who are cheapscates who just want to legitimize their theft. If you told these same people that they had to work for free they would be the first to cry foul. Most people do not expect a music artist to produce their work for free. Those that do just want something for nothing without any consequenses whatsoever. True freedom is about a person being able to have control over their own creation. If a person wants to share their work for free then I applaud that. If that same person wants to charge for their work then the consumer has the freedom to determine if they are willing to pay what the artist wants. The consumer does not have a right to tell someone what they have to do with their work. They also do not have to buy or listen to it either.
That's what I thought originally, and probably the most likely answer.


First off, being able to download music for free does not equal no income for the artists. For example, there are people arguing that artists do in fact profit from filesharing, as especiall unknown artists can get popular because of it, which in turn will boost their CD sales.
Or, make people download their music illegally more. Sure, it will result in some increased CD sales, but I imagine if people get their first song from that author off of the Internet, they're likely to keep getting more off the Internet.


You are also making the mistake of thinking that the way it is now is the only way an artist can make money from his work. But this of course also is not true. For example there are people arguing for a kind of cultural tax that would finance artists and in turn would make downloading legal.
I don't think anybody wants any more taxes.


You also seem to fail to draw a distinction between making a copy for your own personal use and making money by selling other peoples works. Something completely different.
No, I'm talking about downloading it. That's not "making a copy" because you didn't own a copy beforehand.


Finally, this is part of a very fundamental debate about how far copyright should go, what rights consumers should have and especially what purpose copyright serves and if it is still serving this purpose.
Indeed. And that bit belongs in a seperate thread, I think.