Working as designed

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Thu Apr 27 03:14:08 -0700 2006

manage

The GPL doesn't require altruism, or even enlightened self-interest (which is what the article's about). The GPL has been a successful hack because it imposes so few costs and burdens on users. Businesses that never distribute binaries are just like individual users: they cost the open-source world nothing, and if they contribute as much as one bug report then the open-source world comes out ahead.

Now, it's gentlemanly to contribute a customization or a fix, but there are more enjoyable ways to waste time than to appeal for gentlemanliness on Wall Street.

Taking but not Giving

AB3A

Thu Apr 27 06:24:55 -0700 2006

manage

Look, open source software still requires support.  Most companies are looking for vertical market installations, not open source knowhow.  The users aren't going to contribute much.  Users never have. 

But the consulting companies who put this thing together probably will...

Would if we could

N. Dan Smith

Thu Apr 27 08:33:27 -0700 2006

manage

My group utilizes a number of open source apps on a small scale, but we don't have the development people to contribute.  Helping out the little guy is a major strength of F/OSS.

Taking but not Giving

Charles E Hill

Thu Apr 27 09:09:41 -0700 2006

manage

This sounds like the same issue OpenBSD was having, but just not to the same scale. At least with GPL they have to give something back if they distribute it at all. With BSD license, they don't have to do anything -- and many of them take that to heart.

In house code frequently has NO VALUE to anyone else. I've made several in house changes to programs like Squirrelmail that were specific to one company and how they did business.

The main benefit of FOSS software is with a bit of effort, I can make the software adapt to the way I work and NOT the other way around. However, a lot of companies have developed business methods that are very, very unique to them if you look close. Software that has been modified to fit their workflow isn't useful to anyone else because no one else has the exact same workflow.

By workflow I mean "the way they do things" which has frequently evolved over a period of several years to something almost, but not totally unlike the "industry standard" way of doing things.

Taking but not Giving

Technocrat.net Editor

Thu Apr 27 12:48:20 -0700 2006

manage

I was at two big Wall Street investment banks yesterday. One is risk-averse and has been served with some letter from SCO before. They have not seen sufficient value in direct Open Source collaboration to allow them to surmount the FUD, and this has prevented them from submitting any of the modifications they have created directly. They are, however, funding work through Sourcelabs that does reach the community.

Bruce

Taking but not Giving

Lion Kimbro

Fri Apr 28 17:46:14 -0700 2006

manage

I was just last night thinking: "How can Free Software developers get paid?"

Then I thought: "Perhaps they should just ask."

I called the idea: "Pay Expected."

That is, you release the software for free, source code included, GPL'ed, whatever, but then you say: "Here is what we expect you to pay."

People can run it as long as they like, but there is the expectation that if you run it for more than a month, (say,) that you will pay for your use of the software.

The use is tracked. Don't worry: The tracking code is all in the source. You can remove it at any time that you deem appropriate. But the curtousy is to leave it there.

Then we just rely on "shame" and "thanks" to make things work: If someone is mooching, you say: "This here bank has been using our software for 3 years, and hasn't contributed a dime. We expect $1,000 per year from corporations. We will extend thanks to bank X after they pay $3,000, and restore good grace."

See the image for more details.

Thoughts?

Taking but not Giving

bcrowell

Sat Apr 29 15:46:38 -0700 2006

manage

Hi Lion, nice to come across you here!

A couple of possible problems:

1. Big corporations might have firewalls that would block the kind of "phone home" traffic you're talking about (which is, after all, very similar to what you get from spyware).
2. As an individual user, I think one the good things about open source is not having to keep a file cabinet full of licensing info, software keys, DRM'd distribution CD's, etc. I imagine a big corporation would feel the same way, just on a bigger scale. One of the things that's such a nuisance about shareware and trialware is that everything has its own idiosyncratic rules, requests, and restrictions.
3. The reaction might not be, "Oh, OK, we'll pay." It might be, "Yeah, we want to avoid open-source software, because it's a potential source of negative publicity."

Taking but not Giving

Lion Kimbro

Mon May 01 00:57:37 -0700 2006

manage

It's good to see you, too. :)

I think simple bookkeeping is the strongest argument against expecting pay. I don't know the solution. There is likely a technical solution, but that solution may be too hard.

I think I can defuse the other two arguments, though:

The first was that corporations might not allow "phone home" code. For those, you can make simple block deals: "Sony, I expect $10,000 a year." No need to get complicated. In exchange, distribute a build to them without any phone home traffic. Corporations may be the easier buyers, because they tend to have well organized accounts payable systems.

As for the potential for negative publicity, let me turn that around: Using open-source software can become a potential source of positive publicity, too. Think of it like using a credit card, even though you have alternatives, just to obtain a positive credit rating.

I imagine the records of payments for the use of Free Software would be collected together. We would all see who was paying the most, towards the use of Free Software. We would see: "Ah. Company X is paying $100,000 / year in expected pay for Free Software. Company Y is paying $70,000 a year. Company Z is paying $50,000 / year. Congradulations, and remember to thank those who contribute."

As a developer thinking about working for a company, and as a customer who is thinking about making use of a companies services or products-- wouldn't it be nice to know the company pays bills it's not even legally required to pay? I would think that's got to be good for a companies reputation. And it's got to increase the value proposition in that companies product: When you buy from that company, you are supporting your culture.