Profit vs. Community for Linux Progam Developers

[Nylarthothep]

Hey everyone,

I had a thought the other day while coding a new game and I'd like peoples opinions on the matter. I've been thinking a lot about all of the wonderful (and completely free) programs that have been developed for linux based operating systems. While I love the community and the attitude it engenders, it makes turning development into a full time career extremely hard. However, I think I may have just thought of a great middle ground that could allow people to profit off of all their hard work while upholding to the free/open source community that many of us are so fond of.

The solution is this: Make your programs cross platform, charge for use of the program on other non-linux based OS's, and advertise as "Free on Linux/Ubuntu/Debian/whatever!"

I believe that this methodology will bolster the Linux community in two ways; it will offer developers the income they so greatly deserve and attract more people to the linux community. I know it's by no means a perfect plan, especially since cross platforming can be a large headache in some cases, but I think there may be some clout to the idea.

So what do you think?

[Ghost|BTFH]

Open source is open. Porting it to another OS doesn't really change that.

Community is community. Profit is profit.

If you want profit, sell closed source software for Linux and port it for Windows and Mac as well.

If you want to promote Linux over the others, offer Linux users the source code after a few years when you've made the next great piece of software.

Cheers,
Ghost|BTFH

[Thewhistlingwind]

Platform restrictions break the definition of "open source" used by the OSI.

If you really want to help Linux, write your application for all platforms. Charge on all of them.

Use the money to make a well crafted, polished product.;)

[aysiu]

Open source and profit aren't mutually exclusive. You just can't make the profit directly from selling copies of the software (since the source is freely available for download).

Generally speaking you can charge for a service or you can make money off of advertising.

Two examples of this are Wordpress and Firefox.

Wordpress creates this wonderful open source and free blogging software. If you go to wordpress.org, you can download the source yourself and upload it to your own server. If you don't have a server or don't want to bother with figuring out how to upload it and configure it with a MySQL database, you can go to wordpress.com and have them host a blog for you. The free hosting gives you basic features. If you want full control, you pay them a regular fee (domain name, theming, etc.).

Mozilla provides Firefox free for download, and it's open source as well. But they have a deal with Google to make Google the default search engine, and then they get a cut of the ad revenue Google makes off searches through Firefox.

I don't know what Wordpress's profit margins are, but Mozilla makes millions of dollars off of Firefox.

[JDShu]

If the application is open source, then people would just port it to other platforms if they wanted to. So your model is not feasible.

[Thewhistlingwind]

If the application is open source, then people would just port it to other platforms if they wanted to. So your model is not feasible.

This is what I meant when I sad my piece.

The only way to enforce this would be a license that prohibited use on non-Linux systems.

[3Miro]

You can sell Open Source software (like Red Hat). Closed source lets you make more profit, but you can make profit from open source.

For games in particular, I would take a "middle-ground", since games are not something that you would "need" in any way (like a browser or a text editor or a driver). I would take the approach by Firaxis for Civilization IV. They have over 90% of the code open and available to modify and re-distribute. The only restriction that they have is that one needs to purchase the game in order to use any of their mods. IMO this is OK for a game (although it is not OK for a system driver).

[beew]

I like the way minitube operates.

The Linux version is free (by donation) but MacOS and Windows versions are pay. I think he still gets quite a bit of fans and customers from Win and OSX. :)

http://flavio.tordini.org/minitube

[BeRoot ReBoot]

Open source is open. Porting it to another OS doesn't really change that.

Community is community. Profit is profit.

If you want profit, sell closed source software for Linux and port it for Windows and Mac as well.

If you want to promote Linux over the others, offer Linux users the source code after a few years when you've made the next great piece of software.

Cheers,
Ghost|BTFH


Platform restrictions break the definition of "open source" used by the OSI.

If you really want to help Linux, write your application for all platforms. Charge on all of them.

Use the money to make a well crafted, polished product.:wink:

You're both wrong and misinformed. The GPL doesn't prevent you from charging for your product, as long as you provide the source code to all its users, and allow them the four essential software freedoms defined by the Free Software foundation. There is nothing non-Free about OP's plan.

Also, OSI is a corrupt organisation that muddles Free Software by stripping it of the ethical ideals of Software Freedom and marketing it as "open source", which is not the point of Free Software at all. You shouldn't be paying any attention to them.

[Ghost|BTFH]

You're both wrong and misinformed.

Actually, I'm not. Knowing that you can't really make much money when you offer the source code for free isn't the same as saying you CAN'T sell it.

Please read things more carefully in the future.

~Ghost|BTFH

[BeRoot ReBoot]

Actually, I'm not. Knowing that you can't really make much money when you offer the source code for free isn't the same as saying you CAN'T sell it.

Yes, because the average windows user/jobsian follower definitely knows how to turn the source code into a working program.

Also, you're not offering the source code for free - you only have to provide it to the users, and if the program itself has a price, it's perfectly fine to only distribute the source to the paying customers, if they ask for it.

[lykwydchykyn]

Keep in mind that "Linux" (and all the other components that are usually implied by that) is not the only free-as-in-freedom platform in existence.

You've also got BSD, HaikuOS, Android, Darwin, Hurd, etc. Who knows which platforms will be relevant for FOSS in 10 years? If people start licensing things as "only free on Linux", we might be in big trouble someday when Linux gets creaky.

[Thewhistlingwind]

[Snip, I already knew this]

Also, OSI is a corrupt organisation that muddles Free Software by stripping it of the ethical ideals of Software Freedom and marketing it as "open source", which is not the point of Free Software at all. You shouldn't be paying any attention to them.

Well, I hope that first paragraph wasn't directed at me, as I said nothing of the sort.

I said that he couldn't do that (Make the Linux version only open), and still call his program open source.

I won't comment on your opinion of OSI, your well entitled to it.


Keep in mind that "Linux" (and all the other components that are usually implied by that) is not the only free-as-in-freedom platform in existence.

You've also got BSD, HaikuOS, Android, Darwin, Hurd, etc. Who knows which platforms will be relevant for FOSS in 10 years? If people start licensing things as "only free on Linux", we might be in big trouble someday when Linux gets creaky.

Which is in large part the reason why "Open source" requires no platform restrictions in the licensing.

[BeRoot ReBoot]

I said that he couldn't do that (Make the Linux version only open), and still call his program open source.

I think the OP was saying all versions would be Free as in freedom, but the non-Linux versions would have a monetary price, which is perfectly acceptable by the GPLv3.

[BeRoot ReBoot]

Keep in mind that "Linux" (and all the other components that are usually implied by that) is not the only free-as-in-freedom platform in existence.

You've also got BSD, HaikuOS, Android, Darwin, Hurd, etc. Who knows which platforms will be relevant for FOSS in 10 years? If people start licensing things as "only free on Linux", we might be in big trouble someday when Linux gets creaky.

As long as the Linux version is Free (therefore, still has source code available), it shouldn't be much trouble to port that to other POSIX-based operating systems, if the original author paid any attention to standards and good programming practices. And the idea wasn't "only free on Linux", it was "It's Free as in freedom everywhere, but only free as in money on Linux".

[disabledaccount]

If you really want to help Linux, write your application for all platforms. Charge on all of them.

Use the money to make a well crafted, polished product.;)
What helps windows today is exclusive set of applications - otherwise it would be useless.
Money helps, but I know many comercial apps which are buggy like hell.


The only way to enforce this would be a license that prohibited use on non-Linux systems.Not necessarily - You can write OS/Admin tools which from definition are OS-specific. Applications based on popular toolkits like GTK, wxWidgets etc can also be written in such way that it would be hard to impossible to port to another platform (need rewrite huge portion of code).

[JDShu]

Not necessarily - You can write OS/Admin tools which from definition are OS-specific. Applications based on popular toolkits like GTK, wxWidgets etc can also be written in such way that it would be hard to impossible to port to another platform (need rewrite huge portion of code).

I disagree with doing this philosophically and I think it's a horrible idea technically. Code written especially to make it hard to port is probably no good code in the first place.

[3Miro]

Actually, I'm not. Knowing that you can't really make much money when you offer the source code for free isn't the same as saying you CAN'T sell it.

Please read things more carefully in the future.

~Ghost|BTFH

There is a misunderstanding in the meaning of the word Free. Software can be Freedom Software or Proprietary Software or Commercial Software or Free Software (Free is almost always used to mean both Free and Freedom, although those are not necessarily the same, I think the Spanish distinction Libre/Gratis makes more sense).

Windows is Commercial Proprietary Software, you need to pay for it and you cannot modify the source code.

Skype is Free Proprietary Software, you don't have to pay for it, but you cannot modify it.

Red Hat is Commercial Freedom Software, you have to pay for it, but once you pay, you can modify the source code and other things as given by the 4 software freedoms.

Ubuntu is Free Freedom Software, you pay nothing and so whatever you want.

Linux is usually Free-Freedom, but not always. For example, drivers and codecs are sometimes Free-Proprietary.

GPL supports Freedom, whether you want charge a price or give the software for free is entirely up to you.

[disabledaccount]

I disagree with doing this philosophically and I think it's a horrible idea technically. Code written especially to make it hard to port is probably no good code in the first place.Techically, it's often necessary to write part of code in two (or more) versions for different platforms. Platform-dependant code is usually more efficient and faster - wrappers offered by toolkits are not always the best solution.

Philosophically I agree winth You - I just only say that it's possible to write non-portable open source software. I think limitting portability trough licencing is much worse and nasty solution.

[aysiu]

In theory, you can charge as much as you want for GPL'ed software.

In reality, if the source code is freely available, you won't have a viable business charging a lot of money for compiled binaries.

[JDShu]

Techically, it's often necessary to write part of code in two (or more) versions for different platforms. Platform-dependant code is usually more efficient and faster - wrappers offered by toolkits are not always the best solution.

Philosophically I agree winth You - I just only say that it's possible to write non-portable open source software. I think limitting portability trough licencing is much worse and nasty solution.

I think that if your program is intelligently designed, it shouldn't be hard to port it to another platform. The complement of my previous statement is that if you specifically make it difficult to port your program, then it isn't intelligently designed.

[disabledaccount]

The complement of my previous statement is that if you specifically make it difficult to port your program, then it isn't intelligently designed.You can't judge quality of design basing only on this single factor. Besides (as mentioned before) there are open source applications intentionally written to be platform dependant - eg. shell commands, system configuration tools, etc

[JDShu]

You can't judge quality of design basing only on this single factor. Besides (as mentioned before) there are open source applications intentionally written to be platform dependant - eg. shell commands, system configuration tools, etc

I guess I'm making a subtle distinction here. If you make a program difficult to port on purpose then you are likely making decisions that makes the design bad. This is different from things like shell commands where being difficult to port is a trivial sacrifice because the program itself is not relevant on other platforms.

[disabledaccount]

I guess I'm making a subtle distinction here. If you make a program difficult to port on purpose then you are likely making decisions that makes the design bad. I would say it's rather oposite - You have to intentionally choose some multi-platform toolkit/framework to create portable software and this means usually sacrificing some speed/efficiency and/or a lot more time for debugging.

[JDShu]

I would say it's rather oposite - You have to intentionally choose some multi-platform toolkit/framework to create portable software and this means usually sacrificing some speed/efficiency and/or a lot more time for debugging.

I really don't think an intelligently designed program would have such a big reliance on a framework or toolkit, or at least, it wouldn't be hard to port to a different framework.

[Nylarthothep]

Hmm...I think (especially for game development) the best route to go would be to keep the artwork licensed but have the game engine be free and open sourced. This would also allow for others to be able to profit by mods/scripts to the game engine and unique skin packages if they wish to charge for them. Second Life kinda worked like this, minus the entire online economy they implemented.

[3Miro]

In theory, you can charge as much as you want for GPL'ed software.

In reality, if the source code is freely available, you won't have a viable business charging a lot of money for compiled binaries.

So how is then Red Hat doing it?

Firaxis released most of the code for Civilization IV, they still managed to do it.

[ninjaaron]

If I were a game designer, and I wanted to do that for a living and help Linux at the same time, I would just keep it closed source and sell it for cheaper on Linux. People don't make money off Open Source by selling it, they make money by making it a portal of advertisers and paid services (like Ubuntu One), or by providing tech support.

It is true that most Windows and Mac users would not be able to compile it themselves, but it only takes one if the code is under the GLP.

What you would need is a licence that only allows you to distribute the code and the binaries. This will not keep tech-savy users from compiling binaries, but it will stop a lot of others, and it will keep the geeks from distributing the game openly. This would still be "Open Source" technically, but it would not fall under the definition of "Free Software," and Stallman&Co. will be pissed at you.

Because video games are an end product in and of themselves (not platforms for other content or services), and they require an incredible amount of work. I don't see an ethical problem with using proprietary licences. If the creators prefer an open source development model, fine, but you've got to eat somehow.

If, at some point in the future, you decide that you want to open the source to some of your older games, you are perfectly free to do so, provided you do not sell the rights to someone else first.

[aysiu]

So how is then Red Hat doing it? Red Hat mainly charges for support:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/


Firaxis released most of the code for Civilization IV, they still managed to do it. So not all of the code?

[3Miro]

Red Hat mainly charges for support:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/

So not all of the code?

My views on software freedom are not perfectly aligned with FSF.

In order to live in the modern world, one needs e-mail, browsers, pdf readers etc... Those are essential (at least in some sense) and they should be 100% FOSS (this counts double for drivers). Since those programs are so widely used, then making money from support and other FOSS methods works for the devs.

Video games are not essential and it harder to make money out of something like that. The only real restriction that Firaxis has is that I cannot redistribute the original version of the game and they have closed just enough of the code so that a person would need the original in order to take advantage of any modifications. Civ IV has one of the largest and strongest modding communities and only a handful of players would play the regular "vanilla" version of the game, everyone else plays mods. I think this is a fair middle-ground solution for non-essential software.

[Ghost|BTFH]

Yes, because the average windows user/jobsian follower definitely knows how to turn the source code into a working program.

Also, you're not offering the source code for free - you only have to provide it to the users, and if the program itself has a price, it's perfectly fine to only distribute the source to the paying customers, if they ask for it.

And I'm sure you'll be happy to provide a list of software companies who subscribe to this business model and make substantial profits - and by substantial I mean enough that they could actually be compared with proprietary software companies...

And by software companies, let's stick to the ones who, as the OP was discussing, make programs and try to sell them. Like...games, office software, etc.

If you cannot, or can only think of one or two that are exceptions rather than the rule, then perhaps there was some logic in my original statement, yes?