Is it possible to sell software to the big ones?

[sicofante]

I'm approaching my fifties and I'm about to live a quiet live by the sea. However, I want to create a number of apps that I find still poorly designed in Linux (and Windows too, BTW).

I'm wondering the following: do Canonical, Redhat, Novell, etc. buy external development like that? Would they buy my apps, opensource them and pay me back? Or would I need to do something as big as Ximian to even consider such an option?

Although I'd rather keep it as a small personal business, is it possible to become a Canonical employee from home?

[pmasiar]

I'm wondering the following: do Canonical, Redhat, Novell, etc. buy external development like that? Would they buy my apps, opensource them and pay me back?

I don't think so. Why would they? There is plenty packages under GPL. To be bought, you would need to be like JBoss: server+community of paying users.

You may want to try building websites

> Although I'd rather keep it as a small personal business, is it possible to become a Canonical employee from home?

If you are really, really good, known established expert in some projects. They have plenty of volunteers, doing it for fun, or because they need it themselves (scratch your own itch, then share). :-)

You may try shareware, or remote consulting. If you are expert in some nice specific area, you may get paid for it. I know about a guy from NZ, who works for Boston-area startup: because he is really god in TurboGears.

[sicofante]

I guess the reason why someone would want to pay for an app is that it's better than what's available. But I understand it should have to be really much much better.

Thanks for your point of view.

[ubuntu27]

You can go to Ubuntu's Developer Zone (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/participate/developerzone) or do something else to contribute to Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/participate)

You can sell Free Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html), but I doubt they (Canonical) will be interested in buying them.

Many people create their apps for free (in both monetary and in freedom).

-------------

On a side note. Even if you are not going to sell your software, it is a good idea to start programming so people could benefit from it :)

[dempl_dempl]

Look, we all hang out at forum.
Do we look like a money making people :) ?
I'm not completly floodded with pool full of money, yelling : I'M RICH, RICH !!!

Neither are rest of the folks ....

:lolflag:

[trwww]

I'm approaching my fifties and I'm about to live a quiet live by the sea. However, I want to create a number of apps that I find still poorly designed in Linux (and Windows too, BTW).

I'm wondering the following: do Canonical, Redhat, Novell, etc. buy external development like that? Would they buy my apps, opensource them and pay me back? Or would I need to do something as big as Ximian to even consider such an option?

Thats not quite the standard model in the community. Usually what you do is develop your software and release it under some type of free license, build a community (if necessary), and then make your living selling support licenses for the software. If your product is really good, your sales will come right from your community. Enterprise customers will find your product useful and decide to hire you to support, maintain, host, and develop the application.

Plain Black's WebGUI and Best Practical's Request Tracker use this business model.


Although I'd rather keep it as a small personal business, is it possible to become a Canonical employee from home?

Theres no shortage of work for people who can get the job done, but most of the community is a meritocracy. If you want to work for Canonical, I bet it would be really easy to get work from them by contributing to open projects and going to the trade confrences that they go to. By simply climbing the ranks of the meritocracy, work will automatically begin to flow your way.

What I do is as suggested in another post: build custom web sites. I got my work by building a portfolio of web apps and then watch for applicable projects on http://jobs.perl.org/ and similar.

Good luck!

[sicofante]

My question was made because it's pretty obvious to me that individual Linux users simply don't pay for software. This means that individual developers can't even think of making any money out of their work by targeting individuals, so the only hope would be targeting those software distributors that might be interested in newer better ideas.

I understand the Linux market share is still too small. Maybe if that share reaches some day a significant figure, both individuals and distributors become interested in paying for better designed apps for Linux.

Meanwhile, maybe I should try the Windows and Macintosh markets (and maybe distribute a free-as-in-beer version for Linux too). Linux is lovely but I hate working for free.

I know I can do custom development for local companies, but I'm afraid my area of interest is more into individuals. After years of supporting family and friends (and customers, of course) I have some insight on what are the needs of ordinary people.

Thanks for your replies. I'll keep thinking of it.

[Tomosaur]

Many developers can't seem to see the benefits of open-source development - which is fine, it's not for everyone, but we like to think of it as a 'problem shared, problem halved' kind of thing. If you develop in an open-source style, you yourself will have to do less work (apart from the initial preview to get other developers interested). This means you can focus more on other areas, rather than letting one are slip by the wayside while you try to implement a particular feature.

If your software is good, people will use it. You CAN sell open-source software, it's just that not many people do. If your product is unique, and people want it, then they have no choice. If you make a clone of an application,or just make 'yet another media player' or whatever - then obviously people are going to choose the free alternatives.

Many developers also do not like the simple fact that, once their code is released - if they have used the GPL licence, or any of the third-party libraries which your project is based from have used the GPL licence, then people can do with it as they please - including redistributing it for free. If this concerns you, then perhaps a more 'commercially friendly' licence such as the BSD licence is more suited to you. Bearing in mind, however, this will lock you out of all of the great code-base which is currently under the GPL.

It's worth researching into how developers make money from open-source software. Most do not treat the software as a service, which is what companies like Microsoft or Adobe do, but as a product which is supplemented by services such as support.

Either way, it's your decision. It's a complete myth that Linux users 'don't pay for software'. Why would we pay through the nose for something when there are free alternatives which are just as good, or even better? It's just common sense! If you can create a product worth buying, then people will buy it, simple as that. It's a challenge for developers who don't like competition - I don't see why the users should be forced to keep an uninnovative company afloat. If your commercial, proprietary product is sub-par or unoriginal, then you will fail in an open-source environment. The same is true of every industry - it's just that the nature and history of software has meant that commercial developers can afford to provide a poor product - and still generate revenue because there was no real alternative - then just not support that product, thus screwing users over. Open source users won't allow this to happen - we want the best for our money, or we're just not going to pay. Open-source ensures that someone, somewhere, is always able to keep the project updated, introduce new features, etc etc. The beauty of it is that the person who starts the project off has to do less work to get a great result.

Each to his own anyway. Commercial developers need to stop thinking of Linux users as cheapskates, but as a potentially lucrative market crying out for innovative software. Mark Shuttleworth - they guy who funds Ubuntu, is a self-made millionaire. Why would a millionaire use a product which is 'cheap', when he could just buy the absolute best on offer? All of these commercial companies are missing a trick by ignoring Linux - and all the while, Linux is developing and evolving faster than Windows or Mac could ever hope to do.

The lesson is: Build it well, we will buy. Don't screw us around, and you will have customers lapping up whatever it is you have to offer. We value equality, fairness, transparency, and consumer rights. If you respect those too, and you can create something we've never seen before, then people will buy it.

[gnuman]

The lesson is: Build it well, we will buy. Don't screw us around, and you will have customers lapping up whatever it is you have to offer. We value equality, fairness, transparency, and consumer rights. If you respect those too, and you can create something we've never seen before, then people will buy it.

Very well put. I'm actually surprised at how many programmers will pay for certain IDE's that "just work better" for them. Well, actually I'm not that surprised--I've sent away some money (and I'm not rich either, dempl) just to contribut to some OS projects that I've really really loved.

=D>

[pmasiar]

My question was made because it's pretty obvious to me that individual Linux users simply don't pay for software.

No: they **don't have to pay for software** because that get for free software suite which would cost easily $1000 if for Windows: OS, Office, database server, and bunch of other goodies. Why would I pay for it? But from other side, many users decide to contribute towards development of some product or feature, because they like it. Ie users of SPE contributed for mac laptop for developer, so he can make better testing and builds for them.

> This means that individual developers can't even think of making any money out of their work by targeting individuals, so the only hope would be targeting those software distributors that might be interested in newer better ideas.

Wrong again. Why would distributors take risk paying for something which does not have any user community? They **already** have more code they can reasonably support: they need more volunteer package maintainers, not more code.

Your business model is wrong. Think differently. Examples:
- Write good book about some popular project with missing documentation, and sell it: Self-publishing book with Lulu is simple and cheap, and if book is good, publisher will pay for it.
- Write interesting program, sell it with promise to release it under GPL when certain amount is paid to you.
- Provide services for local business or nonprofits, show how you can save them money by switching to Linux. There are plenty of programs like that: Edubuntu for schools, (forgot the name) for local libraries management, etc.
- build websites for local companies
- write to local newspapers series of articles about Linux, how to use it, and provide services for people who need help: you will still save them money compared to full Windows suite.

> I understand the Linux market share is still too
small. Maybe if that share reaches some day a significant figure, both individuals and distributors become interested in paying for better designed apps for Linux.

bzzzt wrong again. If it does not cost money, it is worthless? Lets say 50% of PC users switched to Ubuntu, and companies would be able to buy yearly support for say $20 a year per Linux user, and $180 per Windows user (including upgrades). Beancounter would tell you that Linux market is "worth" only 10% of what Windows is, but I would say that Windows is overpriced - 9 times over honest value, and cannot sustain that.

> Linux is lovely but I hate working for free.

Don't. But don't forget people have right to pay for what **they** want, not for whatever you produced.

Whole business of software production changed. Obviously it is not clear how to make money, but it is useless to wait until people will start paying for licensed software. It is like if candlemaker complained about free light provided by sun, and urged people stop making windows and start buing his candles. Just not gonna happen, think about something different.

> After years of supporting family and friends (and customers, of course) I have some insight on what are the needs of ordinary people.

Then start PC help support business or something. Basically, era of software as product is over, now we have software as service. Deal with it.

Edit: Better expression would be "software as commodity product" - because there will be niches where software can be sold, but this software is niche product, not commodity.

[pmasiar]

perhaps a more 'commercially friendly' licence such as the BSD licence is more suited to you.

IMHO you have it wrong. GPL is **more friendly** to original developer, because other people have to give code back, if they want to distribute it, With BSD, they **don't** - they can take code private, and distribute private forks, creating rather unfair competition. This is why **third-party companies** prefer BSD and call it misleadingly "more business friendly": they can easier "steal the code" and make money by selling proprietary changes to original open source code, without giving a penny or a line of code back to author. Only extremely altruistic people release under BSD.

[sicofante]

we like to think of it as a 'problem shared, problem halved'
This is a very interesting point which keeps me thinking. Thanks.


It's worth researching into how developers make money from open-source software.
Yeah. I'm doing some research lately. So far, open source development seems to be better suited to larger companies than to single individuals, but I keep reading. (Quite interesting pro-closed source debate here (http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/?biz.5.147076.0).)


Basically, era of software as product is over, now we have software as service. Deal with it.
I don't quite like the tone of your replies, but I understand it might be just your way of expressing things. However, this latest sentence makes simply no sense to me. Open source DESKTOP software accounts for what, 10% of the current offer for every platform (Windows, Mac and Linux)? The rest is paid (commercial, shareware, etc.) closed software. The developer gets paid for coding. Whether that is "software as a service" or "software as a product" (a distinction that seems to have different meanings to different people), is not quite the point here.

All I'm saying is that the "commercial, shareware, etc." model doesn't seem to work in Linux (in the low end, at least), where software is 90% or more open sourced. The model sure works in Windows and Mac, where people are pretty well used to pay €10, €20 or €50 for a small app that does things nicely, get support from one single person (or very small company) and be happy supporting the developer for his work directly.

In that line of thought, I was asking myself if the distro makers would be interested in paying. I put Ximian as an extreme example of open source developers/software being bought by a big company. I understand small apps might not have that big same interest, but nonetheless, it's still a model to consider, no?

[Tomosaur]

But that's the problem - what do you have to offer that the distrobution developers can't find for free?

If your product is innovative - then yes, they may be willing to pay, but for distrobutions like Ubuntu - which prides itself on containing only open software (it does distribute some proprietary software, but not in the default installation as far as I'm aware), then I doubt they'd be willing to pay for your product.

I think pmasiar got it wrong when he said 'era of software as product is over'. Software has always been sold as a service - the user never 'owns' the program, they simply use it according to a particular licence. Adobe Photoshop, for example - is sold as a service. It allows you to design things, but that's all it is. You cannot modify it, you cannot redistribute it, you can not even look at how it works. This bears all the trademarks of a service.

Open source apps are generally considered products. The developer creates it, the user owns it. The user can then do whatever they like with it - just like they can with their cars, their microwaves, their furniture. This is what many open-source developers try to make software - a product which the user owns and has full ownership rights over. If the user wants to modify it, they can. If they want to sell it, they can. You can't do this with most proprietary software out there.

At the end of the day - most Linux users, and even developers, are not 'against' proprietary software, which is what most big development companies, and even individual developers such as yourself may be inclined to think. Many Linux users DO believe that the proprietary model is inherently flawed, however - for various reasons which are too numerous to mention here.

If developers wish to make money from open-source development, then they need to approach it with a completely different mindset. Most simply take a quick glance, and say 'They won't pay for software, so I won't make it for them' - but the reality is that it is almost certain that the software these developers are offering is pretty much identical to something that is already available free of charge. It is not the fact that proprietary software requires a monetary transaction - it's that the customer has to sign away their consumer rights and abide by a strict usage policy. Would you buy a fork if it had a licence attatched to it saying 'You may only use this fork to pick up food and insert it into your mouth. You may not use this fork to punch holes in foil seals. You may not use this fork as a prising tool. You may not bend this fork. You may not redistribute this fork in any way. By agreeing to this licence you waive any rights to sue this company if you cut yourself while using this fork.'? That is how open-source users look at proprietary software. Software is a product, a tool - why should we be legally bound to using it in a particular way? Why can't we modify it and sell it on? We paid for it, we should own it. When you pay for a watch, you can do whatever the hell you like with it. It is not a 'time-telling service', it is a mechanical object which just happens to let you read the time. Photoshop is just a tool for making pictures. There is no difference, expect that with Photoshop we are legally bound to ONLY use it for creating pictures.

This is, as I'm sure you agree, completely wrong. If you pay for something, you as the consumer decide what you do with it, not the person who sold it to you. If you sell a car to some person, you can't slap some stupid restriction on that person saying 'You are not allowed to put a spoiler on this car or paint it green - and you can only drive on Fridays'.

Open source is a different way of thinking about software, which puts users first. It is difficult to adjust if you are proprietary developer, but all we ask is that you don't try to assert control over us after we've paid you money. It just so happens that this model tends to attract people with a particular philosophy about sharing and improving things together, for a greater benefit than simply lining the pockets of some CEO somewhere. It may be true that you can't make 'as much' money by developing in an open-source way, but that's just how we roll :)


EDIT: We've already pointed out that you can sell open-source software. It's just a matter of whether it's good enough to buy. If it is, then all you can do is make it known and see if anyone's interested. Nobody will definately by your product, but it's not definite that nobody will buy it - if that makes any sense :P There is tons and tons of open-source software for distribution developers to choose from, completely free of charge. You will need to do your research and come up with a unique product that it makes sense to include in a distribution, if you want to sell to distrobution developers.

[winch]

In that line of thought, I was asking myself if the distro makers would be interested in paying. I put Ximian as an extreme example of open source developers/software being bought by a big company. I understand small apps might not have that big same interest, but nonetheless, it's still a model to consider, no?

With your model you are not selling software as you open source no matter who the highest bidder.
You are really selling the title of software liberator and whatever comes with that. Unless there is an existing community around the software that wants it to be open sourced that probably isn't worth much.

[dempl_dempl]

Tomosaur: what if you sell your open-source software to me, I change it a little bit, and put a price-tag twice as lower as yours, and you run out of bussiness?
I am a customer , I can do whaterver I like with it. This situation can happen very easly.
For example, I already have a job as a university professor, or I don't have a family, so if I sell stuff for a half-price, I don't care...

BTW, I'm not defending evil companies in any way.

[pmasiar]

"commercial, shareware, etc." model doesn't seem to work in Linux (in the low end, at least), where software is 90% or more open sourced. The model sure works in Windows and Mac, where people are pretty well used to pay €10, €20 or €50 for a small app that does things nicely,

I think you also need to distinguish between current status and the trend. Even if current status allows **established players** to charge for small cute programs, trends is towards free open source software, even on windows, like OpenOffice. You are not established player, so you may want either to find a niche where you can survive next 10 years (which is your timeframe until retirement?) or think which way tide goes, and swim with tide. I don't know what you prefer, and maybe even you don't know it yet :-)

Some companies try to give away free simple version and charge for full version, but I think trend is obvious.

Another option might be small program doing something useful for companies - they are more used to pay, to have a throat to choke if something goes wrong.

BTW interesting question, thanks for asking that. Beats the usual "my language is better" wars :-)

[pmasiar]

I think pmasiar got it wrong when he said 'era of software as product is over'. Software has always been sold as a service -

yes, but users are fooled into believing that they "bought" the product.

I should also say "commodity product" - there always will be niches with specialized needs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail market all all that.

[Tomosaur]

Tomosaur: what if you sell your open-source software to me, I change it a little bit, and put a price-tag twice as lower as yours, and you run out of bussiness?
I am a customer , I can do whaterver I like with it. This situation can happen very easly.
For example, I already have a job as a university professor, or I don't have a family, so if I sell stuff for a half-price, I don't care...

BTW, I'm not defending evil companies in any way.

What about it? That's the whole point I'm getting at - you should be able to do that if you want - but who sells anything at a loss? Wholesalers and manufacturers tend to sell at discounted prices for bulk buyers. These buyers then sell to consumers at a profit. This is how software should be sold, BUT:

The real issue is that software, unlike a car, can be copied over and over at no cost. It only needs to be made once - then released. This obviously means that bulk buyers cannot exist, unless the buyer never actually gets to 'own' whatever it is they've bought - which is the model the software industry uses today. By licensing the software rather than selling it, the developers are essentially saying 'I own the only copy of this software, but I'm letting you use it'.

If you undercut my price and put me out of business, I may not like what you do, but I don't think there should be laws in place to stop you from doing it. This is how the economy works. If you can provide an identical or superior product at a lower price, then you will become dominant. That's just how it is. That kind of environment encourages competition - and means all products are the best they can be, and everyone is always trying to introduce something new. This is what the open-source model hopes to achieve - but things like patents, intellectual property and such-like end up getting in the way. If the core components of a standard system are patented, then no new players can ever hope to be successful - they don't have the money to get a licence for the component. Again, things like the OIN, and just general open-source ethos is trying to change this situation, so that the software industry becomes less centralised and more diverse.

The proprietary software industry thrives, and charges for software as if every single copy of that software is a unique product. BMW has to expend time, money, and effort into creating every single car they sell. Developers create the software once, then lease that one copy multiple times. Open source tries to change this, while coping with the above problem of 'build once, copy forever', by:

a) Charging for the medium / distribution method by which the user receives the product.
b) Charging for documentation / support.
c) Charging for some other service related, but not integral, to the product.

It's a common criticism of open-source proponents that we don't want to reward developers for the time and effort they put into creating software.This is absolute nonsense. The software as a service model which companies like Microsoft profit so greatly from, has the concerns and rights of the customer at the lowest possible level. This is the problem. If this model was more consumer-friendly rather than corporate-friendly, then people wouldn't object to it so much.

What it comes down to at the end of the day is - can you pay the bills? Do you need to be massively profitable? Aside from an economic issue, it is a heavily philosophical one. Open-sources are stereotyped as hippies, proprietary types are stereotyped as greedy capitalists. The ideal position is the middle ground, but at the moment, there IS no middle ground. Open-source has a very broad spectrum of interests - from those who want, and strive to, make money (think of big companies like Novell, Red Hat etc), and those who are almost militantly philosophical about it (the FSF, free-software purists etc).

Software is in a grey area between product and service - the majority of realistic open-source enthusiasts consider it to be somewhere in between, which is why there is a service industry growing around a product. The product is free (as in open, modifiable, lets the consumer keep their rights etc), the services are not. Companies like Canonical encourage people to base projects and products around Ubuntu - but are very business-like in how they do it. No unauthorised use of trademarks and such-like. Ubuntu is very much a business-oriented product, with humanitarian ideals to boot. They WANT to make money from it, but they also WANT to improve the world by eliminating vendor lock-in, promoting open standards and such like. People want these things, Canonical helps provide it. Nobody enjoys being locked in to anything - it's just that most people are only now beginning to realise that the even ARE locked in.

Open source developers and proponents aren't trying to destroy the software industry or to keep people from paying the bills, they just don't want to have their rights stripped from them by big corporations. The customer SHOULD be able to compete with a business by selling that business' product. Software shouldn't be a profitable product, because it is easy to copy. The time and effort is in the development of that product, which is what people should be paying for, NOT the binary of the software. Open source means that the time and effort involved in creating a new application is minimal - you're SUPPOSED to just take all of the libraries and such which are already freely available, and tie them together to create your product. You don't have to buy licences for stuff. You don't have to write stuff from scratch. Most of the time you will be writing 'glue' code - just sticking existing bits together. This is how everything in the world is made - Cars, aeroplanes, telephones, you name it - they are all just a combination of parts organised in a particular way. This is what software is, but it is treated as if it is a totally original, unique thing which was plucked out of the ether. Once you get used to developing open-source software, you will understand. It's why Linux programs have these 'dependencies' which cause newcomers so much confusion. Everything is modular, very little is built completely from scratch. Think of it as OOP for the 'real world'. All you need to do is take existing stuff, glue it together to get the functionality you need, and off you go. The beauty of it is that if people like your idea, they will flock to you and help you to develop it.

Proprietary developers need to understand this difference in approach before they can access the open-source market, and they need to show that they understand before the open-source market will accept them.

[ubuntu27]

Tomosaur, you are my new hero. I agree with everything you said :)

sicofante and others interesting in doing a research about Free Software & OpenSource. Here are some links:

Free Software Philosophy (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/)

The Cathedral & the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary (http://www.amazon.com/Cathedral-Bazaar-Musings-Accidental-Revolutionary/dp/0596001088/)

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) (http://www.opensource.org/)


What Business Can Learn from Open Source (http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html)

Extensive Reaserch on why we should use OpenSOurce software. (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html)

[CptPicard]

I need to take some issue with some of the things you've said ;)


The model sure works in Windows and Mac, where people are pretty well used to pay €10, €20 or €50 for a small app that does things nicely, get support from one single person (or very small company) and be happy supporting the developer for his work directly.

My experience is that 99% of the small commercial closed-source apps for Windows by a single developer or small company are horrible crap. They don't do things nicely, they integrate badly into the system despite the supposed monoculture benefits of MSFT, there is no support comparable to what you get on OSS community forums, and the developer still barely makes ends meet without resorting to being greedy, especially because he's all alone with his code.

On Linux, if I need to whip up a small app, I might just as well do it myself and if I'm lucky, I can use some ready-made APIs for it. Then, if I feel it's a bit rough around the edges or could use features, I can just give it out to the community for them to run away with it. They will adapt it to their own needs, and I actually get a better app back than I initially gave away. This absolutely does not happen on Windows, and the end result is that apps are worse and costlier.

This works on larger projects too, without any "large corporation" involvement. Consider the kernel, the Apache web server, KDE/Gnome, Firefox or the GCC, the programmer's instrument.. a lot of really good, large OSS projects are actually infrastructure projects that are only a means to an end for their users. By dividing up the problem, everyone gets a usable end product for whatever they need for a fraction of the cost, by just contributing their bit to the greater body of knowledge that is protected by the GPL.



Maybe if that share reaches some day a significant figure, both individuals and distributors become interested in paying for better designed apps for Linux.


Sorry, but this sounds just a bit arrogant (are you really sure you're capable of doing better just because you'll charge for it?), especially considering what you said after this, which makes you contradictory...


Linux is lovely but I hate working for free.

Yes, it is lovely, and a product of mostly non-traditional not-for-pay efforts, which should fly in the face of your hypothesis. How exactly are your apps better designed? :)

Seriously, I'm on Linux because I want to be competent beyond some MSFT code monkey niche, and Linux just gives me such a huge set of tools to achieve all sorts of computing goals. If I need to hack some tool I'm getting for free to begin with to be a bit better and more suitable and I subsequently give it back for further improvement, so be it... I consider myself more of a "scientist" who charges for his ability to leverage what is there than for some specific widget writing... Don't Repeat Yourself should be a mantra for the development community in general.

[pmasiar]

I agree with 95% of what you said, what follows is mostly nitpicking :

The real issue is that software, unlike a car, can be copied over and over at no cost.

Proper economic term is "marginal production cost" (cost to produce one more, if you already manufactured many) is zero. Never in human history we had product with zero marginal cost, so obviously our laws and tradition struggle to handle this situation. Eben Moglen has great talks about this.

> The proprietary software industry thrives, and charges for software as if every single copy of that software is a unique product.

... as if marginal cost was non-zero. So they can pocket all they charged customer (minus marketing costs). This is why MSFT stock is valued so high: it has huge profit margin, unlike any other industry.


The software as a service model which companies like Microsoft profit so greatly from,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service is **not** model which MSFT uses. SaaS companies charge for "actual time you used software", monthly. MSFT charges for license: "right to use" regardless if you used it or not.

So obviously after sale, MSFT does not care much about the user (until there is time to upgrade). SaaS company has to satisfy user every month. (I know there is vendor lock-in, so changing SaaS vendor is not trivial, but still)


those who are almost militantly philosophical about it (the FSF, free-software purists etc).

FSF cares about free access to source code and has no problem with people selling free software - in fact, FSF was supported be selling tapes with free software. of course it was before Internet changed **distribution**: if you already paid monthly fee for internet connection, **marginal distribution cost** (cost to download 1 MB) is nearly zero.

(I assume that you have monthly "all you can eat" internet, not paying additional fee for time or data transfer, like in USA is. I hear that in some countries it is not the case. So, to save download fees for less lucky folks: if you quote, trim :-) )

Here, we have perfect storm, **two revolutions at once**:

1) product which marginal **production** cost is zero: software
2) distribution method where marginal **distribution** cost zero: internet


Proprietary developers need to understand this difference in approach before they can access the open-source market, and they need to show that they understand before the open-source market will accept them.

And some of then have remarkable success doing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning system is good profitable business to sell really expensive software systems (price in tens of millions USD is common, even price above $100M is possible. Big ERP boys spend months of time and dozens of visits to customer site (resulting of cost of tens of thousands of dollars **per sale**) to make one sale.

Entered free GPL EPR systems. They would not have chance against established players, playing same game. They let them download code for free, try it for free, provide (some) free help, and salesmen comes only when customer determined on his own time and cost that they want to buy the product. So they can sell for substantially lower price. And then charge for customization: but they have to charge honest prices, cannot overcharge, because customer has the code.

But to understand current revolution, you need to comprehend there are two revolutions going on simultaneously: software has zero marginal cost to produce, and internet has zero marginal cost to distribute it.

[dempl_dempl]

Tomosaur :
Nope, you're wrong.
Non-greedy system in capitalism? Muahaha hahaha hahah :lolflag: :popcorn:

If you want to make something like Erich Fromm's society go ahead ...

[If you speak about freedom that much , you should at least know who Erich Fromm is.... google it out, if you don't , and try reading his book or two...]

Now, you can't make a better world in only one tiny aspect of it, because, history has shown that thing/movement you've made , as it grows bigger , goes more far from the original idea.
Communism , for example, is the very best example of it ever ...
Those things Russians were doing has nothing to do with communism.... altough it started nicely...

Now, trying to integrate something which is based on trust in the system which is based on pure greed,
is very impossible.

Those two things confront each other. Either capitalistic society will become free society, or free movement such as FSF becomes capitalistic. Nothing in the middle.

BTW :
[
Current score :
Capitalism : 1299 ( and raising )
Free movements : (void*)0
]

[sicofante]

what do you have to offer that the distrobution developers can't find for free?
Mmmhh, IMO Linux apps are mostly poorly designed (something that has its roots in the obsession to create clones of the commercial apps they are "equivalent" to). So there's simply PLENTY of room for better designed apps in Linux, as of today.

(Please keep in mind that while I do have some specific ideas about which kind of software needs better apps in Linux, I'm just pleased to share a nice conversation on the abstract issue just exposed. I'm not trying to sell you guys any particular software project or idea.)

I haven't said I would sell closed source to the distributors. What I was asking is: how can an individual developer make money inside the Linux environment? Forget "selling support". A developer is not a support person, is a creator of new ideas and often their implementation. Once selling direct is discarded, the next potential buyer is a big-name distributor. (That's more or less my reasoning here.)


'They won't pay for software, so I won't make it for them' - but the reality is that it is almost certain that the software these developers are offering is pretty much identical to something that is already available free of charge.That's too bold a statement, whithout even having got the chance of looking at new designs. Almost every human activity is open to improvement, new ideas and new design.



If you pay for something, you as the consumer decide what you do with it, not the person who sold it to you.
Of course I agree with that, but since nobody is willing to pay for what I invent and create, what's the payment you're talking about?


Open source is a different way of thinking about software, which puts users first. It is difficult to adjust if you are proprietary developer, but all we ask is that you don't try to assert control over us after we've paid you money.
Again, where's the money? I'm eager to sell my open source app. Who's paying for it?


It just so happens that this model tends to attract people with a particular philosophy about sharing and improving things together, for a greater benefit than simply lining the pockets of some CEO somewhere. It may be true that you can't make 'as much' money by developing in an open-source way, but that's just how we roll :)
I know, I know, and I have a lot of sympathy for all the philosophy behind the FOSS model. All I'm asking is: how do I get paid for creating new and better stuff, besides working for tycoons like Mark Shuttleworth as an employee? Isn't it paradoxical that all this sharing has simply removed any chance for individuals to create software and still stay independent from big corporations like RedHat, Novell or Canonical?

In design (industrial, graphic, fashion, etc.), the most interesting ideas come from small independent studios. I'm honestly trying to find how a small studio or a talented individual with great software ideas can survive in the Linux world if that particular part of the process -design and development- isn't paid.


EDIT: We've already pointed out that you can sell open-source software. It's just a matter of whether it's good enough to buy. If it is, then all you can do is make it known and see if anyone's interested.
That's only true for relatively big companies like MySQL, which make their money from support and dual licensing, or Redhat, Novell, etc. which make money just from support. But a creative developer is not a support person. As an individual, once you give away the code to your first buyer (say, your first 50 bucks), you're done. Open source licenses will entitle him to take your ideas, give away copies of your software to anyone, etc. Essentially, the open source model has moved the profit from creating the software to supporting it. Developers are inventors, creators, sometimes artists. You can't ask them to make money by answering phone calls or email after they have created something new and exciting. Something's wrong with the model in this respect and I'm just in the process of thinking about it.



a) Charging for the medium / distribution method by which the user receives the product.
b) Charging for documentation / support.
c) Charging for some other service related, but not integral, to the product.
In a word: charge for anything you wish BUT the original ideas the creator has just had and their particular implementation. You really don't see anything wrong with this?



It's a common criticism of open-source proponents that we don't want to reward developers for the time and effort they put into creating software.This is absolute nonsense.
Please, tell me how exactly open source developers are rewarded economically. Particularly, developers not working for a salary for billionaires or corporations.

I mostly agree with your points and the issue has been debated ad nauseam everywhere. I still have to find a good explanation about how good design, which is made by singular individuals, small teams and devoted small studios, can make any inroads in a world where that particular part of the creation of the product is supposed to be given away for free.

That's exactly why I asked my question in first place.

(Again: please don't think I believe I'm the next Leonardo da Vinci of the software. I might be :-) but this is clearly not the question.)

[pmasiar]

Non-greedy system in capitalism?
Now, trying to integrate something which is based on trust in the system which is based on pure greed,
is very impossible.
Either capitalistic society will become free society, or free movement such as FSF becomes capitalistic.

It is **you** who has it mixed up.
1) FSF repeats ad nauseam: "free as free speach, not as free beer". Zero price is caused by zero marginal distribution cost caused by Interned, as I explained in my previous post.
2) All GPL freedoms are guaranteed by clever use of copyright, which is one kind of intellectual property laws. Without capitalistic society, guaranteeing copyright **law**, GPL would be impossible. In lawless society there are no freedoms, so no free software.
3) I have no idea where do you live and if you ever visited some other less-than-free countries, but you would be surprised how free are people in so called "free world" where GPL originated and is used. Ignoring that just shows your lack of experience and common sense.



Current score :
Capitalism : 1299 ( and raising )
Free movements : (void*)0


What is your statistics based on? Numbers straight out of your other, non-speaking orifice?

Free software totally rules servers, especially web servers. Free databases erode profit of big guys like Oracle. Free office suite is becoming standard implementation of Open Document Format. Education and science is based on sharing, sharing code comes natural to those areas, and thousands programs are available. How can you ignore that?

[pmasiar]

IMO Linux apps are mostly poorly designed

There is some misunderstanding. Linux has excellent design as computer science goes, result of 30 years improvements. You mean GUI design? beauty is skin deep, and recently it started improving too. First code hackers joined the revolution, now graphic designers will.

> how can an individual developer make money inside the Linux environment? Forget "selling support". A developer is not a support person, is a creator of new ideas and often their implementation.

Sell custom enhancements then.

But you need to sell what people want to buy, and support is something they are ready to pay for. Solving their own "custom" problems.

> Once selling direct is discarded, the next potential buyer is a big-name distributor. (That's more or less my reasoning here.)

As I explained you before, distro has plenty of packages and needs more maintainers, not more packages. They don't need package without community supporting and maintaining it.

I mentioned you couple ways how to make money in my previous comments. Code without community around it is dead and useless - only community makes is useful. Open source is user-supported and user-enhanced software.

> Again, where's the money? I'm eager to sell my open source app. Who's paying for it?

Of course nobody. If it was some urgent need, someone already created half-usable something. If it is any good, in a year enough developers would be recruited to improve it. Maybe not as pretty as yours, but usable enough.

> how do I get paid for creating new and better stuff, besides working for tycoons like Mark Shuttleworth as an employee?

Example 1: my friend, a librarian. Employed by university library, he shares efforts to create system for running big public libraries, where maintenance fees alone would be more than his salary. And market solution are not exactly what they need, and they want to customize it anyway.

Example 2: Rpy, python bindings for R statistical package. It is created by employee of a big pharmaceutical company. I assume they use R and Python internally, so it makes sense to pay him part time to do it.

Example 3: Turbogears wizard hacker from NZ working for internet startup in Boston. Talk to him evening, and in the morning you have the code!

Example 4: Django: Python web app framework. Created by newspaper, released to community (because it shares efforts of maintaining it: their primary business is news production, and web framework is only a tool.

Example 5: TurboGears web framework. Released by one-man company, because he needed it for his own project, and could not afford to maintain it alone.

Example 6: TRAC bug tracker, TinyERP, osCommerce, Compiere's free Java-based ERP/CRM system: released by small companies to gain market share and save on marketing cost. All get paid for customization and support.

> Isn't it paradoxical that all this sharing has simply removed any chance for individuals to create software and still stay independent from big corporations like RedHat, Novell or Canonical?

You have to find **who** wants to pay, and **what** they are ready to pay for. You obviously cannot do it, but many did, as mentioned above.

> I'm honestly trying to find how ... a talented individual ... can survive in the Linux world if that particular part of the process -design and development- isn't paid.

That is easy to answer: you cannot. If nobody wants to pay for your solution, solve some other problem.

> As an individual, once you give away the code to your first buyer (say, your first 50 bucks), you're done.

Not so. You can give then the code, but not with GPL license. Tell that after say 1000 sales you re-release it under GPL.

> Essentially, the open source model has moved the profit from creating the software to supporting it. Developers are inventors, creators, sometimes artists. You can't ask them to make money by answering phone calls or email after they have created something new and exciting.

Yes I can, and many are doing just that, and doing fine. Releasing product they created market for services. And they are uniquely good in providing those services.

It is like razor company sells cheap razors and making money in blades, or printer company sells cheap printers and makes money on toners. This trick is as old as capitalism, you never heard of it? Read a book about marketing. You need it.

> In a word: charge for anything you wish BUT the original ideas the creator has just had and their particular implementation.

Original ideas are a dime a dozen, want some? I have plenty to share.
Show me how you can solve my problem and I will think how much your solution is worth to me.

But don't tell me you will charge a fee for just pretty GUI - I can handle less-than-pretty if it does the job OK.
OK is good enough, it does not have to be perfect.

> Please, tell me how exactly open source developers are rewarded economically. Particularly, developers not working for a salary for billionaires or corporations.

see 6 examples above. Do you need more?

Edit: BTW, Sourceforge has same concern and ideas like you: https://ostg.wufoo.com/forms/marketplace-interest-list/

[dwhitney67]

Do not focus so much on selling software (applications) but instead knowledge. Experience matters the most when designing a product, not the actual implementation of such. Anybody can write code. Not everybody can design or architect a solution.

Here's an anecdotal story I've heard before (mind you, the wording may have changed from its original recantation):

Once there was a train traveling from one city to the next. Somewhere in between, the train engine started developing mechanical problems.

Upon arriving at an intermediary station, the train conductor sought out the local mechanic to fix the engine. The mechanic agreed to assist with the repairs. The first thing the mechanic did was examine the engine from left to right, front to back. He then he whacked the engine with a huge sledgehammer and then to everyones surprise, the engine started working normally.

Afterwards the mechanic demanded a service fee from the train conductor of a $1000 for his services. The train conductor, furious about being charged such a ridiculous amount, argued that the simple task performed was not worth the expense being charged.

The mechanic replied that the task may have been simple, and anyone with half a brain could have hit the engine, but knowing where to hit the engine is what matters.

The moral of the story is that knowledge and experience matter. Thus, sell your services so that you can earn a living.

Personally I am happy with my current employer. They hired me as a C++ software engineer and since the day I have been employed I have been doing nothing other than serving as their Linux guru. I am almost too the point that I don't even know how to spell C++! Day in and day out all I do is seek out ways to improve the tools that are used to build their Linux distro (which contains their proprietary applications as well). Oh yeah, and I work from home. :guitar:

[CptPicard]

Perhaps Mr. "Sycophant" could make a living being a paid Microsoft rep on forums, trying to convince FOSS people that they MUST start charging for what they do, in order not to ruin capitalism ;)

Seriously, your questions are moot points. I could start complaining that "I have a pile of horse dung on my front yard and I want to sell it, how do I turn a profit if other people give it away for free??" The point of a market economy is that if someone undercuts your price, they do that, and it's not unfair... :boohoo: The closed-source proponents' whines about "how do I make money" are just so totally irrelevant. Nobody is entitled to profit.

Don't use the GPL if you don't feel like it suits your needs; nobody forces you to (on the linking question I am of the opinion you should be allowed to link to GPLd libraries without license "contagion"). You also are not entitled into GPL'd code without adhering to the license, and there should be no complaints about that. What exactly is it that stops you from trying out the Windows business model of doing things on Linux? Or are you so afraid of the competition that you absolutely must dissuade others from being a part of the FOSS movement first? :)

When I do use the GPL, it's for a good reason -- if Newton had had to pay licenses to prerequisite math before figuring out calculus, we wouldn't have his laws of motion -- or his heirs would still receive royalties from engineering students. Analogously, if I had to pay for anything and everything I use in my own consulting, it would be hell, and I would have to charge so much more of my clients (especially my main one) they couldn't afford my work. Not to mention just the time I'd spend managing licenses and paying bills.

If, during work, I extend some tool in interesting ways, I am fully willing to put it out for further improvement by the community. Those extensions are not part of my business per se, they are not an asset I want to start marketing and trading with formally. I just want the tool to be better.

On the other hand, there IS custom code that IS core of mine and my main client's business -- it's the analysis software he uses, and that he'd kill me for if I let it slip off my hard drive so that our competitors could get their hands on the fast number crunchers that form the edge of his business. This something we are not GPLing, and not releasing, either. :)

The GPL is all about moving stuff into the public domain so that there is no longer a need to make a profit off it. It's essentially a very efficient system, as it lets developers focus on new things that actually help some specific client with a particular problem. That you have a harder time making money in software is just a sign, in the economic sense, that things are getting more efficient :)

[dempl_dempl]

It is **you** who has it mixed up.
1) FSF repeats ad nauseam: "free as free speach, not as free beer". Zero price is caused by zero marginal distribution cost caused by Interned, as I explained in my previous post.


Buhahahahahahaha.
I've read that stupid licence.
Read it carefully on the end, and see how much is not free as a beer.:popcorn:

[CptPicard]

Thinking of the marginal-cost argument vs. the idea that we "shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot" by doing free software reminds me of the quotation to the tune of "whenever two or more professionals gather together in private, it is usually to conspire against the public" or somesuch.

It's really worth noting that the whole licensing idea is nothing but a way to get around the fact that there is zero marginal and distribution cost to software. It's a form of price control that believes that if someone originates an idea or writes a piece of code, they must be paid for it in perpetuity, and maybe for some minimum price (because apparently doing software for really cheap, like free, is wrong).

The proponents of the traditional software model seem to want that we live in some medieval guild-style cartel, where professionals get together to fix prices and control the ways of doing business. The fact that F/OSS causes such consternation just shows that it's a credibly disruptive threat to the cartel, so people must be brought back into the fold :p

[dempl_dempl]

Thinking of the marginal-cost argument vs. the idea that we "shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot" by doing free software reminds me of the quotation to the tune of "whenever two or more professionals gather together in private, it is usually to conspire against the public" or somesuch.



It's really worth noting that the whole licensing idea is nothing but a way to get around the fact that there is zero marginal and distribution cost to software. It's a form of price control that believes that if someone originates an idea or writes a piece of code, they must be paid for it in perpetuity, and maybe for some minimum price (because apparently doing software for really cheap, like free, is wrong).

The proponents of the traditional software model seem to want that we live in some medieval guild-style cartel, where professionals get together to fix prices and control the ways of doing business. The fact that F/OSS causes such consternation just shows that it's a credibly disruptive threat to the cartel, so people must be brought back into the fold :p



He he, good old medieval days... they had they charm :) ...
BTW, in medieval days people used to make guilds , only in order to avoid un-fair competition with price-cutting. You couldn't see that small store where you go every day goes out of bussiness just because a WallMart showed up few blocs away...

You all should be good men, not naive...

Now , let me see ....
RMS can earn a lot of cash by doing absolutley nothing since he stoped working with GDB( last 10 years or so ),
except ( oh poor RMS ) :
traveling around the world , making a funny seminars and making a funny speeches against the MS.

Actually , I admire that guy , he made half of the world programmers working for 0$ while he does
nothing and lives quite nicely ...
Even England's finest Capitalists in 19th century didn't succeded in that.... :p

I can see the point in sharing libraries, but how many people needs KDE's source !?

We all hate patent laws, but you can't just dismiss it all, there are couple of good stuff there.
Fanaticaly going into one side or another is not solution...

Anyway, how many of you purchased any Linux program?
There are couple of very good ones out there.

Ofcourse, MS and Google and others are very evil companies, but don't think that RedHat , Novell and friends will be any better when/if they get they're hands on MS' market ...

Exceptions ofcourse exist, you will never be able to make evil company out of Ubuntu and Slackware :)...



For the last time , I really love Linux movement (except for all of you sit around god for nothin' hanging at forum folks :p ) , but , it's a little bit ahead of it's time ... It's shame it's only real movement toward sanity theese days. There should be more of them in other aspects of life, but that's better than nothing...

CptPicard: you really gonna have to read Orwell's article : "Modern English and politics" in order to take it easy with what you must think is "advanced use of English". BTW, it's not.

Anyway, I have a life, I'm off to something usefull , other than wasting time on forum...

[pmasiar]

He he, good old medieval days... they had they charm :) ...

yes, shills like you can get decent job in inquisition :-)

>BTW, in medieval days people used to make guilds , only in order to avoid un-fair competition with price-cutting.

If you would bother to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild, you would learn that big part of why Guild was needed was quality control - it was way to maintain it before FDA and quality standards, and mutual support of free tradesmen against abuse by feudal oligarchs.

> You couldn't see that small store where you go every day goes out of bussiness just because a WallMart showed up few blocs away...

Nobody forces you to buy in Wal-Mart, in fact I almost never do.

> RMS can earn a lot of cash by doing absolutley nothing

You may not be aware of it, but RMS was recipient of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_grant (what obviously cannot happen to you :-) ). I read also that he slept in sleeping bag under his table in MIT lab, working to finish free software. He earned his position hard way.

> making a funny seminars and making a funny speeches against the MS.

...while you are working hard astroturfing for your overlord, MS ? :-)

> We all hate patent laws, but you can't just dismiss it all, there are couple of good stuff there.

Like what?

> Anyway, I have a life, I'm off to something usefull , other than wasting time on forum...

great, take with you friends, and never come back.

[dempl_dempl]

Ok, I was joking . Fights on the forum are really cool! :D

Please, if you ever meet Gates or Ballmer, my evil-Overlords , say hello in my name, and thank them for all Aston-Martins and trucks full of cash I got from them.
You don't really think I type theese words? One of my concubines is writing down my dictation ( that's why it has so many spelling and grammar errors ).

Good thing about patent is that you can be live from inventing stuff. ( at least they were intended to do so). Give something good to the Evil Corporation(TM) like Umbrella , CPO , MS, or Google, and they'll ruin it. As they did.

Now, I ask again : when was the last time did anyone of you bought any Linux program ?
Paying CD shiping is not the same as buying a program.

BTW, RMS really earns a lot of cash... like a good old 19th century british capitalist....
Linus porbbably earns more money, but he actually works something...
On the other hand, you really think RMS doesn't listen to the MP3 songs ? Bu hahahahha.

Ok, now I really have to go back to my over-lording job, or my dark bos will send me to the room 101, and you don't want to go to room 101 ....

[sicofante]

Example 1: my friend, a librarian. Employed by university library, he shares efforts to create system for running big public libraries, where maintenance fees alone would be more than his salary. And market solution are not exactly what they need, and they want to customize it anyway.

Example 2: Rpy, python bindings for R statistical package. It is created by employee of a big pharmaceutical company. I assume they use R and Python internally, so it makes sense to pay him part time to do it.

Example 3: Turbogears wizard hacker from NZ working for internet startup in Boston. Talk to him evening, and in the morning you have the code!

Example 4: Django: Python web app framework. Created by newspaper, released to community (because it shares efforts of maintaining it: their primary business is news production, and web framework is only a tool.

Example 5: TurboGears web framework. Released by one-man company, because he needed it for his own project, and could not afford to maintain it alone.

Example 6: TRAC bug tracker, TinyERP, osCommerce, Compiere's free Java-based ERP/CRM system: released by small companies to gain market share and save on marketing cost. All get paid for customization and support.

Excuse me but these six examples show exactly my point: none of these can live from creating and designing software. They have to do something else in order to make a living.

[CptPicard]

Excuse me but these six examples show exactly my point: none of these can live from creating and designing software. They have to do something else in order to make a living.

It seems to me that most of them are making a living through writing/customizing/being competent with software, and just finding that it is more cost-effective to share the common effort. They are trading away work for work, and it is their right to do so.

I always thought it's great if you can trivialize something away up to the point of no longer having to spend full-time work on it. It has the distinct feel of economic efficiency to it :)

[pmasiar]

Excuse me but these six examples show exactly my point: none of these can live from creating and designing software. They have to do something else in order to make a living.

Excuse me but many people pointed to you trivial fact that you **don't have to release your code** under GPL.

http://wiki.python.org/moin/WingIde sells old-fashioned closed source: http://www.wingware.com/products - http://www.wingware.com/wingide/platforms

I wanted to show you other non-trivial ways to make living, even as you do release code under GPL.

[Wiebelhaus]

If you created something , Let a normal user like myself try it and I liked it , I would have no problem buying it , but if you created something and didn't let me try it , I wouldn't even look at it.

Word of mouth does amazing things , if you create something that works and let people try it , they will tell their buddies so if you create a website that can be linked to with content or programs that people like, who knows , in ten years you could have a few hundred thousand or maybe even a million customers.

Good luck mate.

[Tomosaur]

Mmmhh, IMO Linux apps are mostly poorly designed (something that has its roots in the obsession to create clones of the commercial apps they are "equivalent" to). So there's simply PLENTY of room for better designed apps in Linux, as of today.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder :)

In any case - what 'clones' are you talking about? There is software which aims to bring some software to Linux, yes - but the developers are usually very open about this - they don't try to hide it and claim the idea as their own. If the software they want isn't available to them on Linux, then why shouldn't they try to emulate it in their own software project? Seems perfectly fine to me. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.



I haven't said I would sell closed source to the distributors. What I was asking is: how can an individual developer make money inside the Linux environment? Forget "selling support". A developer is not a support person, is a creator of new ideas and often their implementation. Once selling direct is discarded, the next potential buyer is a big-name distributor. (That's more or less my reasoning here.)
If a developer is not a support person, then he is a bad developer. If you don't fix your bugs, you're a bad developer. If you don't look at people's problems and help them out, then you're a bad developer. If you don't maintain your code even though people are reliant on your software, you're a bad developer. You may be a great programmer, but you're still a bad developer. Programming is the act of writing code - development is the act of writing code, the act of designing code, the act of maintaining code, the act of supporting people who use your code, the act of coming up with interesting new features, etc etc etc. If you see yourself as a developer, then you should want people to have a good experience with your software. This means you must support their problems. If you see yourself as a programmer, then all you really have to do is program - you can afford to discard all of the other stuff.



That's too bold a statement, whithout even having got the chance of looking at new designs. Almost every human activity is open to improvement, new ideas and new design.
You're denying that the vast majority of software has functional equivalents? This is why we stress the need to 'not reinvent the wheel'. If your project is similar to something else, you should just join in the development of that project. If you agree that everything is open to improvement, new ideas and such - then open source is what you should already be doing. That is the whole point of it. Like I said before - if you can bring something new to the table, then perhaps people will buy it. You are not entitled to a customer base just because you spent some time on creating a media player. We need less clones - more innovation.



Of course I agree with that, but since nobody is willing to pay for what I invent and create, what's the payment you're talking about?
How can anyone pay for something which doesn't exist? Like we've been saying - show us what you've got, maybe someone will buy it. Maybe not. You won't know until you do it.



Again, where's the money? I'm eager to sell my open source app. Who's paying for it?
That's your job - not ours. If you have no target market, no marketing skills etc, then you will fail in any industry. You find the customer base, you offer them your product. If you can't find a target market, then guess what - nobody wants your product. All of these problems are present in any industry. It's no good selling a record player to a deaf man, or a television to a blind man. Sell your product to the right people - or make them think they are the right people for your product. That's the whole point of marketing.



I know, I know, and I have a lot of sympathy for all the philosophy behind the FOSS model. All I'm asking is: how do I get paid for creating new and better stuff, besides working for tycoons like Mark Shuttleworth as an employee? Isn't it paradoxical that all this sharing has simply removed any chance for individuals to create software and still stay independent from big corporations like RedHat, Novell or Canonical?
You're still stuck in the 'proprietary' mode. Is your product 'new' and 'better'? Is it something we've never seen before? If not, then you will fail. If there is a free alternative to what you're offering, then who in their right mind would pay money? You do not have to use the GPL - if your product is something people want, then they will buy it, just like they do today. Linux users spend very little, if any, money on software because they have no needs which aren't already satisfied by free software. Create a problem, then build a solution. Any industry knows this is the first rule. Car manufacturers told people that they could get anywhere faster. People decided they wanted cars. MP3 player manufacturers told people they should be able to listen to their entire music collection, anywhere, any time. People thought 'yeah, I should be able to do that' and flocked to buy mp3 players. Nobody is going to market your product for you, that is your job and your job alone. Create something unique that people want, but only offer it at a price, and maybe they'll buy it. Maybe not. Don't ask us to do your job for you.


In design (industrial, graphic, fashion, etc.), the most interesting ideas come from small independent studios. I'm honestly trying to find how a small studio or a talented individual with great software ideas can survive in the Linux world if that particular part of the process -design and development- isn't paid.
It's only 'not paid' because the developers do not want to be paid. If they did, they wouldn't be giving their product away for free, would they? It is not a 'Linux mandate' that you make your product freely available. If you want to sell it, then do that. You do not have to use GPL code in your software. You CAN keep everything closed source, it's your choice. Do whatever you like.


That's only true for relatively big companies like MySQL, which make their money from support and dual licensing, or Redhat, Novell, etc. which make money just from support. But a creative developer is not a support person. As an individual, once you give away the code to your first buyer (say, your first 50 bucks), you're done. Open source licenses will entitle him to take your ideas, give away copies of your software to anyone, etc. Essentially, the open source model has moved the profit from creating the software to supporting it. Developers are inventors, creators, sometimes artists. You can't ask them to make money by answering phone calls or email after they have created something new and exciting. Something's wrong with the model in this respect and I'm just in the process of thinking about it.
'Take your ideas'? If he's just redistributing your code, he's not taking your ideas. In any case - you do not have to use GPLd code. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. As pmasiar suggested - you could initially release your product as closed source, make money off it, then later release it under the GPL. There's nothing stopping you from doing whatever the hell you like. That's the whole point. Closed source, open source, just do whatever. You are not entitled to be paid just for creating something. If you can make something that people want to buy, then they will buy it. It's as simple as that.



In a word: charge for anything you wish BUT the original ideas the creator has just had and their particular implementation. You really don't see anything wrong with this?
No. What's wrong with it? An idea isn't something I can hold, it's not something I can use. The idea of intellectual property is absurd. Property is tangible, ideas are not. In any case, you're not selling me an idea, you're selling me a product - a tool. I don't give a damn about your 'idea'. If your product serves some purpose, and I want it so badly - then I will pay for it. I do not want your 'idea', I want the tool. And later, if I want to copy your idea and put you out of business, then I should be able to if I feel like it. That is the philosophical leap I'm talking about. Ideas are not useful, the implementation of it is the useful part. If I take your idea, and release my own implementation for free - then that forces you to come up with a better idea and take the market back, or keep on top of your implementation and make sure it is always the best. This means that no one company can ever become a monopoly, and every product is the best it can be. Competition is good, monopolies are bad. It may be absurd from your perspective, but it is entirely natural and obvious from ours.



Please, tell me how exactly open source developers are rewarded economically. Particularly, developers not working for a salary for billionaires or corporations.
Open source developers do not have to develop full time. Many have jobs - many have full time jobs. Many are students. Like I said before, a problem shared is a problem halved. Most open source developers do what they do because they want to use the end product, or just for the joy of development. Many do not care one iota about making money from it. If your primary motivation is money, then perhaps you picked the wrong profession. Open source is supposed to work so that lots of developers help develop the product - no single developer has to spend so much time working on it that they feel the need to be compensated - and many will work on many different projects at once, particularly if they have some vested interest in the end result of that project. You're still thinking about it as 'I created this product, I want to be paid for it' - when to stand any chance in the open source world you should be thinking 'I contributed to this project, and I love the end result'. If you come up with the original idea - great, but people can't do anything with your 'idea'. Build the tool, get others to help you do it, and the end result is what people will thank you for. If you have nothing people want, or can use, then you are obviously not going to get anywhere.



I mostly agree with your points and the issue has been debated ad nauseam everywhere. I still have to find a good explanation about how good design, which is made by singular individuals, small teams and devoted small studios, can make any inroads in a world where that particular part of the creation of the product is supposed to be given away for free.
In open source - popular ideas don't remain 'small teams' for very long. If people want your product, they will help you get it off the ground. If they don't want it, they won't. If you won't let people help you, then chances are they will just take your idea and do it themselves, at a rate you couldn't possibly hope to match on your own.

In many ways - the open source world is incredibly ruthless - especially if you try to compete inside it with the mindset of 'us and them'. That is a totally incompatible viewpoint here - there is only 'us'. If people want what you have to offer - you will find yourself doing far less of the development work than you had anticipated (hopefully), and your project will progress rapidly. You will not be paid for your idea, because ideas are not inherently useful. Tools are what people can use, and tools are what people want - not ideas. It takes an idea to create a new tool, but it takes a tool to solve a problem.

You can continue with your proprietary development if you feel like - but as we have (hopefully) pointed out - we value the consumer over the developer. We value the tool over the idea. It is just a different approach, and it is one which has the proprietary software industry worried. It may not be aesthetically amazing (yet), and it may not be particularly profitable, but it is how humans naturally wish to work, and it is the way software will be developed in the future. Like it or lump it, you will either join us or become irrelevant. Slow and steady wins the race, after all :)

[pmasiar]

IMO Linux apps are mostly poorly designed (something that has its roots in the obsession to create clones of the commercial apps they are "equivalent" to)

Why people create open clones? Either closed application does not run on Linux, or is missing some interesting feature which developers want to add. Is it Linux developers fault that their needs are ignored?

In either way, original company has huge competitive advantage by having original sources, knowledge of design, and income from other platforms, and all they have to do is port app to Linux and sell it cheap enough and flexible enough so free software will not be tempted to create free clone. It is lot of work to create whole app, and enough people will do it if it worth.

But of course GPL way of creating applications, when you share code created by others and let your code be shared forward, is superior to traditional commercial way, which forces developers reinvent the wheel every time, all the time, and with time, and without patents, will prevail for all commodity programs.

[nanotube]

as an example, i can propose the model i have for my pykeylogger project:

http://pykeylogger.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/PyKeylogger:Download_Instructions

i certainly don't make more than some petty cash, not nearly enough to even come close to "supporting myself", but i might presume that if you were to have a project that is much better and more useful, with a lot more interest from users (and if you have several such projects), you could have a decent return.

not sure if this is what you have in mind, but it's food for thought. :)

[zabien1970]

I think as mentioned earlier that writing a book may be your best bet, although almost everything nowadays can be found on the web I can bet there is not one person on this forum that doesn't have some sort of reference library.
When I first started linux I bought 'Linux Phrasebook' by Scott Granneman, it's an excellent book I've referenced many times when I'm stuck on something.
For what you want though I would go with something like "How To Make Your Computer Shine", "With top customization software included on free cd'.
Then write 5 to 10 excellent open source programs and package them on the cd, write the book on how you developed each one, then at the end of the book write a chapter for each one explaining how to use and get the most out of each one. Then even though the programs would be open source the instruction manuals would be protected by copyright laws.
For an example of a book I (and I'm sure many others) would buy, a book on Compiz Fusion. Although this is freely available look at the 'Desktop Effects & Customization' forum, there is nonstop discussion. If I was at a bookstore and seen a book that explained how to use all the features and issues, and came with a 'free' cd containing a stable version along with some 'free' extras I would definitely check it out, and if it cost only $5 I would most likely buy it. And before I get 'that's what the forum's for', there are alot of n00bs to Linux and what may be obvious to one person is a foreign language to another.
As was mentioned earlier about proper marketing, proper packaging is also important.

[JanC]

To the people who believe that you can't successfully sell software to linux users, someone already pointed to WingIDE and of course there are server applications like Oracle, etc., but there is also:

http://www.apple.com/shake/ http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=7639522 http://www.codegear.com/products/ TurboPrint http://www.turboprint.de/english.html http://vistasource.com/ http://www.softmaker.com/english/ofl_en.htm http://www.cadsoft.de/ http://www.webersys.com/ http://www.varicad.com/ http://www.softimage.com/ http://www.sidefx.com/ http://www.appgen.com/ http://www.pagestream.org/ http://www.kanzelsberger.com http://www.activestate.com/Products/komodo_ide/ http://www.ultramixer.com http://www.cedega.com/ ...

Most of them are actually cross-platform, so that might be a good idea for people who want to go the closed source route. Remember that WordPerfect lost its nearly-monopoly in the wordprocessing market because they put their bet on OS/2 instead of Windows 3.0! Maybe one day all those who are betting on Windows or whatever single platform will lose too... (look at Adobe/Macromedia's troubles to get a 64-bit version working).

[YetAnotherNoob]

I would like to point something out: The cost of producing an item (software, cars, currency) is not linked to its value. The value of an item is entirely determined by what the market finds acceptable to pay.

Products are at times bought and sold at ridiculuosly inflated prices. This is bad for consumers, but so are cigarettes. *cough* *hack*

There is no need to be abusive of others. Instead develop choices, promote the facts, and let the market decide.

:)

[nanotube]

There is no need to be abusive of others. Instead develop choices, promote the facts, and let the market decide.

:)

letting the market decide works well in an "ideal" world, where no one player has a disproportionate amount of market power, where information acquisition, dissemination, and processing costs are [nearly] zero.

in the "real" world, you have some large players with power, who deliberately create barriers to entry, barriers to switching products, barriers to interoperability.

they also have large marketing budgets (dissemination costs), your non-expert consumer can't easily get unbiased information on the available products, in part because the marketing signal obscures unbiased information (acquisition costs), and actually evaluating all available products one can find to determine which one is best costs time (processing costs?).

all this makes the option of "stay with the incumbent, regardless of available alternatives" a stable equilibrium for the system. so "letting the market decide" is not nearly as simple as one would like it to be. it takes a concerted effort to /force/ the market to decide the way you want it to decide. :) [and bonus points if you get to be abusive to others while doing it! :) ]

[YetAnotherNoob]

letting the market decide works well in an "ideal" world, where no one player has a disproportionate amount of market power
I am agree it is a one sided affair, but there is no alternative. Linux cannot strong-arm the market to take its product as other vendors can. The only way forward is to continuously improve the software, take feedback, and advertise/promote it. The big-wide commercial world will not be revolutionized by an open licensing arrangement. Those believing it are the true idealists.


bonus points if you get to be abusive to others while doing it!
I think you're probably joking. :) But I would mention a major reason that my co-workers refuse to use linux is the perception of a closed, elitist community of "know-it-alls". Patronizing potential converts is sure way to send them back to windows.

[pmasiar]

I would like to point something out: The cost of producing an item (software, cars, currency) is not linked to its value. The value of an item is entirely determined by what the market finds acceptable to pay.

Cost of producing an item (manufacturing cost) has two parts: cost to produce first one (initial cost), and cost to produce additional copies (marginal cost).

Programs are special that initial cost = manufacturing cost, because marginal cost is zero. We never in human history had a product with zero marginal cost. Just think about it.

Value of item is not determined by market; price is. Just get Economy 101 somewhere, or use wikipedia :-) Value (valuation) is how usable is item for me, indirectly dependent to the actual price, although both are measured in money. This is why you can "get best value for your money" with some products.


Instead develop choices, promote the facts, and let the market decide.

As a free entrepreneur, I will always try to present fact in a way beneficial for my products. There are only two kinds of entrepreneurs: those who openly admit doing it, and those who lie about not doing it. As a CEO of a for-profit company, you have fiduciary responsibility to your stockholders to maximize profit, and if you don't, you be fired by the board.

Market is only a result of everyone doing the same promotion. But if you try to be nice where others are not, you get clobbered.

[nanotube]

I think you're probably joking. :) But I would mention a major reason that my co-workers refuse to use linux is the perception of a closed, elitist community of "know-it-alls". Patronizing potential converts is sure way to send them back to windows.

well, yes, it was intended as a joke - you certainly don't want to be abusive to your potential customers. but... i suppose you could be abusive to your competitors, if you can afford it :)

[nanotube]

But if you try to be nice where others are not, you get clobbered.

aye, and that's one very powerful result coming out of non-cooperative game theory.

everyone should go and read a book about game theory right now! :) seriously, why isn't it on the high school curriculum? (and same goes for economics ;) )...

[sicofante]

If "standard marketing practices" have an unbearable limit for users and customers, Microsoft is probably reaching it. As a matter of fact, some Linux success will be definitely attributed to that.

When I started this post I wanted to know if a small developer has any chance of selling software for the Linux platform. I must say I currently firmly believe that the answer to the question is a big no. It's not possible to sell directly and make a living out of it. I kind of knew that before my first post, and that's why I asked if there was any chance of being paid by the big ones. I understand I might try to be employed by Canonical or Novell, but that wasn't the point, obviously.

Linux marketshare is still made of us, the faithful geeks (I know some non-geeks are coming in, but the big share is still made of geeks). When/if that share grows past two digits, a lot of ordinary people will be using Linux (there are simply not that many geeks...) and by then I can think of smaller apps being sold to Linux users. By then, of course, also very big names like Adobe or even games developers may pay attention to that part of the market.

[sicofante]

...
That's an interesing list. Most of those names are really big companies that are intentionally out of the scope of this thread, but I must admit there are a few examples of courageous small developers too. I'll look at them carefully.