[buug] Re: [Buug-admin] open source article

[Christopher Sullivan]

I'm forwarding this to the main BUUG mailing list, as it is of general
interest to the group.  

On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 TonStanco at aol.com wrote:

> QUESTION:
> 
> I believe that Open Source is a very important freedom movement, because, 
> like Harvard's Professor Lessig says, code is law, but with a non-human 
> police force. With closed code, we'll all be prisoners in the very near 
> future. So I believe that code MUST be open.

I slightly disagree here.  SHOULD be open.  MUST implies force (ie. by law
or other forceful means), and I believe that it is the software
developers' ultimate choice on which model they follow.  I do believe that
closed source software is, however, doomed to eventual failure.

> But can anyone tell me why software can't be both open and sold like Windows? 

I think you are confusing terms here.  Open != free.  Necessarily, that
is.  And your statement is a bit like saying, "must all colors be black or
white?"  There are many shades of grey between "open source" and
Microsoft, and a bunch of colors, too.

> Why is it that software has to be basically given away if it's open? I'm not 

It dosen't.  RedHat (and others) charge for their compilation of Linux,
and yet it is still "open."  They seem to be making lots of money selling
software that they also "give away." 

> sure that anyone in Open Source has ever answered  this question. It just 
> seems to be assumed without any critical analysis. Why can't Open Source 

You are incorrect here.  Many in the Open Source movement have answered
this question many times.

> developers get a royalty percentage of the sale price just like writers, 
> recording artists or movie actors, and the product sold just like Windows is 
> through traditional channels, so that the developers get paid for their work?

Linus Torvalds gets paid for his work.  Just not in the way you think.

Okay, I'll stop with the snide statements and answer the question that
I believe you are asking, which is slightly different than the direction
you are going, methinks.

The biggest problem with this is your assumption that the only way for
developers to be paid fairly is with direct compensation for services
performed.  This shows that you probably didn't do your homework right.
Thinking in a "Money Paid for Services Rendered" mentality is the first
paradigm that Open Source breaks, and it actually goes a long way to
"fixing" what is, in many people's view, a broken view of how one goes
about paying for software.  I would argue that Microsoft dosen't pay their
developers "fairly": after all, Bill Gates wrote no actual code that is
currently in Windows 2000, yet he is the richest man in the company (er.. 
country, actually). That's not "fairly" by my definition. 

I'll back up a bit.  Linus Torvalds did not develop Linux to be rich.  He
developed Linux because it filled a "need".  Part of that "need" was
fulfilled by releasing the code onto the net as Open Source: because
others could work on portions of it that he did not have the time (or
energy... or even desire) to develop, Linus got what he wanted... a full,
working POSIX-compliant operating system that didn't suck (ie, wasn't
Minix).  Part of the reason Open Source software "works" so well is it is
designed to fit a particular need the programmer had at the time, not as a
get-rich-quick scheme.

But Linus' "need" was also (like many human beings his age) to finish his
education and land a job.  Linux met this need too:  he now works for
Transmeta, a company that is willing to pay him to spend part of his day
working on Linux (as well as his other responsibilities).

And that brings me to my point.  Many in the Open Source movement work at
companies that use or develop systems around these Open Source programs.
I, for example, work for a local UNIX consuntancy firm.  The firm I work
for has a number of Open Source developers on the payroll.  Apple, Sun,
etc. all employ a large quantity of Open Source developers, and most
grant the employee a large amount of latitude to work on their Open Source
projects on company time/equipment.  My company is no different: in fact,
one of my paid projects was to develop documentation that will probably
be released under the GPL license when it is completed.

Open Source isn't "free," at least in the "free beer" sense... it's free
in the "free speech" sense.  Open Source does cost money.  Sure, the
_CODE_ is out there at no cost, but that dosen't mean it won't cost you
any money to use it.  You are going to have to (at minimum) pay somebody
to run and/or implement it at some level. 

Open Source is an "honest" cost model.  You pay for what it costs you to
actually implement the software.  In most cases, the software was
originally developed because it filled some "need" somewhere.  It might
not fill your need exactly, so you hire a programmer to wonk it the
direction you need.. and those changes can (usually optionally, provided
you don't yourself sell the code) find it's way back into the source tree,
benefitting everyone.

Closed Source software is a dishonest cost model.  Not only do you have to
pay for the software, but most of the time, you'll need to pay to have an
implementor make it happen.  It's a bit like buying a car, and having to
pay for somebody to put it together after you've already spent $20,000 on
the car.  That's right?  I don't personally think so.  

Another point.  If you're question was, "How can a(n) Open Software
company make money?", I won't just handwave and say "well, RedHat is, so
what's your point."  It's a valid question, with a simple answer.

Have you ever seen where Microsoft makes a good percentage of their money?
It's called "support."  In fact, I'm inclined to say that that's the
biggest racket out there.  Make a crummy product, and charge people to fix
it when it breaks.  :)

But seriously, that's the answer.  Again, the _SOFTWARE_ is free, and if
you have the technical knowhow to make it work, so be it.  But the
majority of people out there (most of the human population) don't have a
clue about how computers work.  So, you recoup your development losses by
providing commercial support to those people.  Everything from the $15
manual, through $2/minute consumer grade support, to six-figure on-call
support contracts. This is why the RedHat model works.  The software is
just a platform to sell you additional goods and services.

Hell.  Microsoft and AOL have figured this out a long time ago.  Well, AOL
at least has... 

At one time, this was the way the computer industry operated.  The
operating system was something that came with the computer.  When I got
started in computers (in the late 1970's), the term "licensing" was
unheard of.  My computer came with CP/M, and when my CP/M disks went bad,
I just copied a buddy's and went on with my life.  Later, when I bought an
Atari ST computer, the OS was burned in to the ROMs of the machine.  I
understand that the 70's IBM mainframe market was similar: the OS was
part of the "support" contract you bought with IBM.

Support feeds the engine that makes Open Software work, just like in the
past the hardware fed it.

Pick up a copy of Eric Raymond's book, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar."  He
discusses some of these models in that book.  You might want to wander
over to slashdot.org: a lot of the above concepts have been argued ad
nauseum over there as well.  Lastly, you might want to stop by one of the
free software user groups (such as BALUG, the Bay Area Linux Users Group,
or the BAFUG group that we join for their meetings in Berkeley) to see
this dynamic in action.

Hope that answers your questions, and I welcome further comments /
questions.

-Chris Sullivan
System Administrator