Speech on Linux...

[Robert Brockway]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Anton Markov wrote:

> 2. Software developers often don't value their own time/skills. Time is
> arguably one of our greatest assets, and while sharing source code is
> beneficial to the development and growth of software, giving away the
> code completely for free is just not smart. While making the software

There's a lot in this email and to be honest I'm not going to debate it
with you because it's all been said and done before.

I did however want to cover this one small point because it is straight
forward.  It is easy to refute your statement above.  Consider this:

I write some code.  I realise it under an open source licence.  Someone
else takes it and improves it.  I download the improved code and use it.
I have engaged in no additional effort but an benefitting because I
originally released the code.  I am better off than I would have been had
I not released the code.  Therefore it was smart to release the code so
your assertion is false.  QED.

As much as 90% of all code is meant for internal use only and will never
be commercially offered under any circumstances.  The company loses
nothing by releasing it and enjoyingthe benefits of the improvements it
receives.

This is one of the corner stones of the OSS movement.  I can give you code
without losing it myself, unlike a physical object.  We can give each
other code and we are both richer.  If everyone does it the entire
community is richer and each person is individually richer as well.

There are more ways to make money from IT then software licencing.  It
really is a bizarre concept.  Imagine if books were licenced like
commercial software so that lending your book to someone to read was a
violation of the licencing agreement.  Remember many such licencing
agreements specifically prohibit transfering software between machines
even when there is no intention of running the software concurrently under
the same licence.

The OSS movement is consistently turning out higher quality software than
commerical companies.  I think the reasons are pretty obvious.  A couple
of the reasons are:

1.  Many OSS projects can draw from a much larger developer base.  A large
development house could have 50 developers split between many projects,
but OSS projects can draw hundreds of developers working part time.
Overall many OSS projects have more time invested in them than commercial
projects of similar size.

2.  Much commercial software is marketting driven.  This often leads to
elaborate but rarely used features added with each new version to
encourage existing customers to upgrade (and to enourage new customers to
a lesser extent).  OSS development is community driven.  I can't tell you
the number of times I've wished for a feature in an OSS tool and without
saying a word to anyone it has appeared within a few months.  Why?
Because others wanted it too and the community driven effort pushed those
features in.  Many large software houses ignore all but the largest
clients with feature requests.

Some OSS projects have not proceeded well, and some specific areas have
been left untouched when one might expect an OSS offering to appear.  This
was a problem in OSS for a long time, but you know what - those are the
areas that IBM, Novell, SGI and others focus on.  They have figured out
they can make money with OSS so they are investing in the areas that will
ultimately benefit them the most.  They base their work on the work of
others and ultimately give back.

As I've said on this list before, capitalism is only one approach to
wealth.

I could go on but I won't.  This topic has been rehashed so many times.

This turned out quite long :)

Rob

-- 
Robert Brockway B.Sc. email: robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy at public.gmane.org, rbrockway-cFo9iiqjkw8eIZ0/mPfg9Q at public.gmane.org
Linux counter project ID #16440 (http://counter.li.org)
"The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" -Baha'u'llah
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml