Other Software > Developer's Corner
The Inversion of the Open Source - Big Corporation Divide?
steeladept:
Okay, I have to say I have a big issue with this anti-corporate slant. Mouser, I think you may be overly zealous in your distrust of corporations (not that it is unwarranted, this is just more of a reality check to ensure you are not being too pessimistic). I feel your conclusions from the book are rather off the mark as I will present in a moment. Also, I am particularly concerned with the way rxantos explains it (not saying you are completely wrong, just the way you explain your thoughts is making no sense to me). Assuming all statements made thus far are true (specifically that 95% of software is for internal consumption), then I don't see the issue. More specifically, open source software does not mean that these corporations went out and took free code from someone else necessarily. Much, dare I say most, of this code is developed in house for business-specific purposes. Moreover, if the 5% is all that is out there now, look at how much IS out there. That means this is a truly mammoth market that has more than enough room for anyone with an idea and skills to bring that idea to market independent of the size of their organization.
This leads to the argument that it puts programmers out of work. Who do you think they will have develop it/customize it for their use? The manager? Not in any company I have ever worked for or seen. Indeed, I feel that the comparison of a coder to a starving artist is a gross exaggeration and negligent blindness to the realities of business. Companies get nothing for free - sure they may download free software, for example, but then they have to pay a programmer to customize it to suit their needs. Moreover, if this software is relied on for even the slightest bit of production, then the company will want (and pay for) someone to support it to ensure it stays functional. Does this mean programmers will do this for free? Again, not in any normal situation I have ever seen. Indeed, rather than comparing the programmer to a starving artist, I see them being more comparable to the accountant. Some will work for corporations of all sizes, some will be independent contractors, and some will be small businesses filling the needs of everyday consumers. This is where the small, independent programmer this thread alludes to is going in my eyes.
Now, speaking directly to rxantos, With regard to your complaints about a few "fat cats" being shareholders and owning everything to their own money-making machine, I wish to ask you for specific examples? I don't believe you can account for the staggering amount of money in the stock markets around the world with your narrow view. At best, these "Ultra Wealthy" make up a small percentage. By far, the largest source of money in the stock market is shareholders who represent the common man. These are corporations investing money in other corporations on behalf of small individual contributors. In the United States, there are two BIG examples that make up in excess of 90% (exact percentage depends on who you talk to, but I have seen numbers between 95% and 98% of market funds available) of the investment funds used in the stock market today. These are in order - retirement investment vehicles (401k, IRA, etc.) and bank reinvestment of savings. Sure, these companies take a small percentage of the investment in the form of fees to cover their costs and make money (as you pointed out, that is their reason for existence after all), but without this, you would not be getting any interest on deposits or growth for retirement (if you used these financial tools). If you believe in the communist utopia as set forth by Carl Marx and therefore do not subscribe to or take advantage of these types of instruments (they exist world-wide in a variety of forms), be my guest, but this is the way the world works right now.
With that said, I do not discount or disagree with your resulting statements (part of why I think it was a poor understanding of your statements and not a poor thought process). Many programmers do come out of College with an idealistic view of open source and probably do fall for coding for free in some circumstances. I don't see this as a particularly bad thing, as they still get the experience (both of coding and of how to recognize you are being duped), and they get exposure. I also agree with your ways of making money, though I disagree those are the only ways for a programmer. There is no reason you can't work for a company in the IT department maintaining and/or customizing code. Likewise, there is no reason you can't contract with companies to provide services as needed under terms you find mutually agreeable. I get the feeling your complaint in this respect is that you can't choose your work (freelance), but as already stated there is no reason I can see to feel that way (and you even point to one potential way of accomplishing that). Indeed, the cooperative you speak of is nothing more than yet another software house producing software to make money. The organization and business plan may be a bit different than the existing companies, but that does not change the fact that it would be a business/organization. There are even existing models in other industries that could be copied to attempt to achieve the desired result. Many of these fall under the heading of non-profit agencies in the United States. The key, though, is the same as it has always been. Find a need and fulfill it at a price that is as cheap or cheaper than the alternative with a quality as good or better than the alternative.
Sorry for going on so long, but this thread was headed in a decidedly "me too" direction that I can not get behind. :P
mouser:
I suppose the main point I am trying to make has nothing to do with big corporations and whether they are good or bad, or the role of open source in these corporations.
My main point is simply that it seems to me there are two paths that the Free / Open Source culture could go down..
* The first path (the one i think we are currently on) for an Open Source future leads to world view that says "no person should ever pay money for software"; i think the natural outcome of this is that larger corporations will use software as an indirect leverage to make money, and small independent coders will find it increasingly hard to make a living from coding software.
* The second path would be one in which the culture of Free / Open Source software embraced the idea that people should support authors/coders/musicians directly (through donations, small payments, whatever), and recognized that users providing financial support was integral to the health of the Open Source community.
My point is simply that the Open Source community offers a possible revolution in software and music, etc. But that the Open Source community doesn't seem to be paying much attention to these two possible paths, and that in a zeal to spread the concept of Open Source, they may be pushing us towards the first path without consideration for its consequences, and that from an ethical and long-term standpoint, we need to be working harder to get us down the second path.
Perhaps a better way to view what i'm saying is simply that i can see a path forward where individuals directly support authors and artists, with donations that match their financial resources, and that this can create an entire ecosystem that bypasses the stranglehold and waste of the large corporations of middlemen whose only role is gatekeeping. I don't want the Open Source revolution to take us someplace where all software is Open Source/Free but we end up worsening the relationship between independent authors/artists and end users.
I think we are starting to see a new generation of corporate management that views Open Source as a tool for increasing efficiency and profits. Nothing wrong with that, and clearly some in the Open Source community are not concerned with bigger picture items -- they are interested in promoting Open Source as a first principle. But I'm much more interested in Open Source as an ethical issue and as a piece of a larger shift towards bringing producers and consumers closer together as one community. I'm interested in plotting a path towards having end users (and music fans, etc.) directly funding small developers and artists, and being part of the creation process. And ultimately what I'm hoping for is an overlap between the Open Source advocates and those who are interested in this new way of funding small developers directly. I'm just trying to feel my way around the Open Source community and figure out what corner of that universe i belong in.
steeladept:
Actually that is what I got from your arguments. However, I think you are missing at least a third option. That being where the software is seen as a product, and the author providing a service. This option is analogous to book authors where some are paid by the masses indirectly (a publisher pays the author and the publisher takes on the risk and rewards of the works), they can work directly for companies and publish internally (they hold no ownership of their work), and the smallest third option, they can self publish and get paid directly by the consumer of their product. The reason this is such a small percentage and is generally considered low payout for books is the advertising costs are so high that it is difficult for an unknown self-published author to get seen.
It is exactly the same for software, except the author becomes the programmer. So now programmers work for a corporation with no ownership of their work (internal systems programmers), they can produce work that gets sold through resellers who buy the work up front and assume the risk and reward of selling the work, or they can self-publish. In your thesis, it seems you are looking at the Open Source software community as only the third option, whereas it really can be in any of the three. In fact, the economics of Open Source Software as a way of making money for a programmer is a fallacy. The economics of software is independent of whether or not the software is "Open". It is the business model of distribution that sets the economic viability of the software solution and not openness of the code. I hope this makes sense.
mouser:
The economics of software is independent of whether or not the software is "Open". It is the business model of distribution that sets the economic viability of the software solution and not openness of the code.
--- End quote ---
but isn't part of the dilemma that the requirements to meeting an "official" open source license involve granting anyone the license to distribute your open source product and charge whatever they want for it, without any payment or arrangement with the author.
this seems to me part of why we are seeing such a move to indirect profit making from open source software, where companies give away software but find other ways to profit from users (ads, support services), since the very core of an open source license virtually guarantees an inability to raise money *directly* from users for the software.
again, i'm arguing more about a cultural issue than a legal one -- i'm saying that the culture is starting to view the idea that one should contribute financially to software authors or music artists as a foreign concept. we are all starting to think that all software should be free of any (direct obvious) cost. my point is that the consequences of this are unpleasant, and my worry is that some of the open source advocates are hastening our shift to this instead of trying to pair the Open Source revolution with a parallel cultural shift in supporting authors directly.
the commercial community has jumped all over the idea of providing things that look like they are free -- that are free from any direct cost to the user, in order to capture a market and capture a future customer. think about the cell phone companies, who basically "give away" phones in order to capture long term phone plan payments. my point is simply that we are heading towards a point where no one can conceive of paying for software (or donating to support authors) -- where they expect all software to be free and won't tolerate the concept of paying (as a donation or otherwise) a software author or a musician/artist. they will simply conclude that if a musician/software author expects to make a living, they will figure out a way to sell their software to a large company that will leverage that work to get more customers to charge service rates or feed ads to, etc. and i just don't think that's a good thing for the independent author/artist.
and just to reiterate a point i have been trying to make -- i'm not saying we need any new laws or software licenses -- mostly what i'm saying is that those who are interested in Open Source from an ethical standpoint (rather than as a commercial opportunity to increase profits), may have an obligation and an opportunity to try to pair this revolution with a shift in thinking about the need for individuals to directly fund independent developers/artists, and that *THIS* is as important (perhaps moreso) in terms of improving our society than is the concept of "open source" itself.
steeladept:
Oh, I definitely agree, you are arguing the cultural and ethical points of this, not the economic points - well not directly. I notice you also are targeting a specific license of open source - the problem with this is there are LOTS of open source licenses. Some of the more prevalent ones do include language like you said, but then the question of how open is open comes into play. Personally, with the license language you sport above, I would think the author would have to price it to the point that no one would buy it for it to be economically feasible under those terms. Like many points in Marx's manifesto, the idea is great, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired.
What I have seen as the best workable solution (for an "open source license") is used primarily in business only situations where the company ends up paying loads of money to another company but gets full source code with it and is free to do anything they want with it except sell it in part or in whole. This has it's own set of issues, such as at what point does taking parts of it constitute selling it vs. taking that knowledge and applying it to other software. They are just algorithms after all, and there are only so many ways to accomplish any given task. So at what point does it become a "part" instead of just a way of accomplishing a task?
Now, with where you see this as heading, I do see what you mean. I don't like that idea much either. Hopefully the "masses" will see this for what it is and won't stand for it, though I am rather pessimistic of that. The whole idea of advertising and apps stores within an app seem disingenuous to me too. However I don't see this as a issue of business pushing out the independent programmer as much as business finding ways to bring in more customers. It is the customer's ideal of finding everything for free that is at issue there, and I don't see that ever going away. That is why Walmart continues to grow year after year at the expense of the mom & pop shops. They provide more selection at lower cost, so people go independent of the ethical considerations of doing so (by and large - I know many who won't go for just this reason, but we are a minority).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version