Explaining Open Source

[Aryra]

I have recently been trying to explain to my dad that Ubuntu (and many other open source projects, such as Firefox) is completely free.


No they don't want anything other than for me to use the software.

Yes I'm sure its free.

Yes, companies exist who aren't in it for just profit.

No, really.

No. Seriously.

And so on. Could someone come up with some ways for me to logically explain why open source software is the way it is? Namely, free and open.

I know the reasons myself, but I cant really express them in words too well...or at least not in a way he understands XD

Thanks ^^

[kaboodle_fish]

Have you managed to explain the difference between free as in freedom and free as in no cost?

[koleoptero]

There are tons of discussions here on FLOSS or FOSS or whatever you want to call them. Use the search.

[Lord Illidan]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

[az]

It's because the internet is special and software is not like a sandwich.

Imagine you could make a sandwich, press a button and give everyone in the world a copy of your sandwich. You can't do that with food, but you can do with with software. The cost/effort to make your software available to anyone is the same as making it available to everyone.

There always was and always will be people who are willing to share their accomplishments. That's what F/LOSS is.

Software has existed long before the model of selling the software as a product. Before that time, the "product" was the computer, and the ability to make a computer do something is what has value and what people want to pay for.

Free/libre software can often offer more value than proprietary software.

The ability to extend what the software does adds value. But that's a service, not a product. And most people who earn a living by writing code, don't do it for a product that will end up being sold. Rather, they do it in-house and don't distribute it or contribute to a free-libre project or otherwise freely.

The business model for F/LOSS is services and support. You make money by providing a service associated with the code, but you don't sell the ownership of the code.

Even when you deploy a proprietary operating system in a business setting, you are still going to pay someone to keep your production machines running, because you make money so long as they run. If they go down, you lose money.

If you take a look at the heavy-hitters on the net, what OS do they use? F/LOSS powers ebay, amazon.com, Google, Yahoo....

[az]

...I forgot to mention that there is a big distinction between F/LOSS and Freeware. Freeware is not free, it just costs nothing today. But all Freeware eventually costs something or becomes obsolete.

The reason that F/LOSS is different is because it"s about Software Freedom. People who contribute code to F/LOSS projects prefer that the project is distributed under a license that protects the code. Most of the time, that means the code is distributed under the GPL.

You can't steal GPLed code. Anything you add to it must be made free as well.

This protects the user as well as the developers of the code from what your father has doubts about. No one will ever be able to take the code away.

[aysiu]

No they don't want anything other than for me to use the software.

Yes I'm sure its free.

Yes, companies exist who aren't in it for just profit.

No, really.

No. Seriously. As far as I know, Mozilla makes millions of dollars off Google for making Google the default search engine in Firefox.

So, no, open source doesn't mean the businesses don't make money. Google uses its own customized version of Ubuntu, and it also runs its search engine on Linux servers. Red Hat is a for-profit company. Even MySQL has an Enterprise Edition.

Open source has to do with the license for the software making the source viewable, modifiable, and redistributable. It doesn't mean you are not allowed to charge money for the software or aren't allowed to make money off the software.

[Aryra]

As far as I know, Mozilla makes millions of dollars off Google for making Google the default search engine in Firefox.

So, no, open source doesn't mean the businesses don't make money. Google uses its own customized version of Ubuntu, and it also runs its search engine on Linux servers. Red Hat is a for-profit company. Even MySQL has an Enterprise Edition.

Open source has to do with the license for the software making the source viewable, modifiable, and redistributable. It doesn't mean you are not allowed to charge money for the software or aren't allowed to make money off the software.

Oh yes, I know that open source doesn't equal no money. But from a general user point of view, many OS projects don't generate profit like that. Advertising yes, specialized versions yes. ^^

Thanks to everyone for replying so far ^^

[aysiu]

I guess my point is that if your dad is skeptical of there being a "free lunch," you can explain that the developers of open source software often (not always) do get paid, and that Mark Shuttleworth is a multimillionaire who wanted to give back to open source, and that's how Ubuntu came to be.

Ubuntu owes a great debt to the thousands (millions?) of volunteers around the world who contribute to the coding, testing, and documenting of various open source projects on which it depends, but it is also funded from real money from real economies worldwide.

[Washer]

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

That's a good lace to start. I'll post more if I can recall them.

[Lostincyberspace]

Oh yes, I know that open source doesn't equal no money. But from a general user point of view, many OS projects don't generate profit like that. Advertising yes, specialized versions yes. ^^

Thanks to everyone for replying so far ^^
true to the "beginning" end user it looks like it's free but then eventually you realize if more people support through donations and that sort of thing the more full time developers there are for it and the better it becomes.

[frup]

Also say there are three companies who have a certain software need.

Company A forks out money for licenses of proprietary software & support.

Company B develops proprietary software in house and retains IT professionals for support.

Company C takes an existing open source project and either sponsors/bounties for features in the project or forks with their own IT people... Depending on their needs/morality they can choose to release the code again or keep it locked up provided they don't redistribute it.


Guarantee Company C saves the most money and gets the most targeted software for their need. If Company C releases the code or just sponsors/bounties for features every one is advantaged.

[DeadSuperHero]

When explaining it to someone, how about getting on their greedy side by telling them of the ABSOLUTE POWER they'll have over their computer if all their apps were Open Source? :guitar: