Popular @
Forum Controls
Spotlight Features
The Rich Engineering Heritage Behind Dependency Injection
Andrew McVeigh takes us on a tour of the rich heritage behind dependency injection, what it represents, and tells us why its here to stay.
NetBeans 6: Matisse Updates
NetBeans 6 delivers great updates to the Matisse GUI builder. Spend a few minutes with Roman Strobl and get an expert briefing on what's new and what has changed. (sponsored)
Introduction to Groovy Part 3
In this, the third and final installation of Andres' Introduction to Groovy series, you learn about how Groovy handles variable numbers of arguments, named parameters, currying, and more about Groovy operators. Including, some new operators.
Easier Custom Components with Swing Fuse
Swing Fuse (actually just Fuse), is a framework designed to make it easier to create your own custom desktop components. In this article, Daniel Spiewak shows you how to get started and provides sample source code you can download.
Benchmark Analysis: Guice vs Spring
Willam Louth shows how he uses JXInsight Probes to investigate probable performance issues with code bases that he is not familiar with. He also highlights possible pitfalls in creating a benchmark, as well as in the analysis of results.
Open Source is a Bad Thing
At 7:30 AM on Sep 26, 2002, Bruce Attah wrote:
Fresh Jobs for Developers Post a job opportunity
Look at the current wave of Open Source. Who's profiting from it? Programmers? Not much. Big companies like IBM, Sun and others with venture capital behind them such as Red Hat are benefiting to the tune of hundreds of millions, possibly billions of dollars, while most of the programmers who produced the work are forced to live on a salary because they threw their rights away.
106 replies so far (
Post your own)
OPEN SOURCE IS A COMUNITARIAN EFFORT!!!
Imagine every sigle pice of knowledge to be IP protected... Big Corporations will buy the rights and the people will be restricted at their will... because no one will have the legal right to use knowledge as they want.RAND it's just a bad trick.
Open Source empowers People... and people contribute to Open Source... If Big Coprs have benefits from Open Source, and they want to contribute... they are wellcome as they do their contributions Open. Not Just Big Corporations have benefits from opensource. In my Contry, many... many small business are getting benefits from Open Source...
I know it is hard for may companies to realize that their business are in risk, because of the appearing of competing Open Source alternatives... but I'm sure that this is not going to Kill the World Economy... new ways of business will come... the selling boxes business will be passé...
"If you sell water on the desert, and it starts to rain... may be you should find a new business!!!"
Re: Open Source is a Bad Thing
Oh shit, you're right. And here I thought that using an open source licence for my software (JFreeChart/JFreeReport) meant that I would never have to work again. What was I thinking?!!Dave Gilbert
JFreeChart Project Leader
http://www.jfree.org
Motivation
Your understanding of Open Source is not correct. Big buck is not a motivation for Open Source developers. Quite opposite, it proclaims that there is something beyond the money .... something, people are willing to work for...Motivation and suggested readings
Can't agree more with Kirill, your understanding of open source is not correct.Reading "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" book by Eric S. Raymond (also online here: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/) may help you.
Simone Bordet
MX4J Project Leader
Foxtrot Project Leader
I disagree, this is why
I agree with the others that replied above, but I’d like to add a few points:1) Small companies use Open Source to be able to compete against larger companies. Mandrake Software would not exists as an OS company without open source. True IBM is using open source software as well to make money, but the GPL license requires them to release their code back to everyone. I ask you this; if I wanted to start a software company (myself and 5 of my buddies) who sold an OS (Mandrake Linux) or an application server (Jboss) without the shoulders of open source to stand on what chance would I have?
2) From a developer’s point of view, as mentioned above open source isn’t about making money for many; it’s about getting recognition, sharing our work, and mostly having fun. It is much the same as people writing short stories and posting them. Open source allows programmers to work on fun projects that may or may not have any commercial viability. Most of us work on boring (BORING) apps at our real day job. Open source allows us to work on fun applications at home, and be able to release the code to the wild without worrying about it getting stolen and copyrighted by someone else (the reason the GPL was created). Furthermore, most programmers would have no idea how to sell their work, and it isn’t as easy as it seems (we are usually a Steve Wozniak, not a Steve Jobs). At least with open source there is a chance that your project will get big, and the money will come rolling in (as it did with Linus Torvalds when given stock options from Redhat worth millions).
3) Open code, and especially open standards is what makes innovation soar. It is when basic infrastructure is proprietary that our industry stagnates. The Internet is one very good example of that. I wouldn’t make an algorithm that accurately calculated when a stock would split open source
As owner of your code, you can choose many licenses. As a programmer I would choose open source in many situations, but not all.
tLw
Re: Open Source is a Bad Thing
Warning for the dense: the below may contain high amounts of sarcasm. You have been warned.Yeah opensource sucks. The software licensing model is serving us so well right now. I mean half the developers are unemployed because of the hundreds of millions of dollars into developing a products that no one wants and you don't really know that until its all spent. That sounds like a lovely way to make money.
A horrible business model would be to spend less on maintenance, have your customers fix some of you bugs for you and get constant feedback durring the development process, have a huge free beta test community and sell services for way more money than you put into it. Thats just stupid! Its much better to have unpredictable risk, cost and outcomes that you can't see till the end.
-Andrew C. Oliver
Founder of the Apache POI project
Re: OPEN SOURCE IS A COMUNITARIAN EFFORT!!!
How do you think big companies get hold of IP rights in the first place? By persuading inventive individuals to give up their rights in exchange for a salary.In the bad old days (pre-copyright), if you spent your life time writing a novel or a textbook, or developing an invention, the next guy down the road who just happened to own a printing press or a factory could exploit your invention and leave you to starve.
After copyright was invented, the capitalists (the folks with printing presses, factories, distribution networks, etc.) had to negotiate deals with the inventor or author so the little guy stood a chance.
Now, as open source proliferates, the big guys have the advantage again. They can and will exploit all the IP they can get *much* more effectively than the little guy on his own can, and, through their domination of distribution networks, they can and will squeeze the little guy out.
As to imagining a situation in which all IP is privately owned, such a situation is perfectly fine by me. The fact that taxis are all privately owned does not prevent me from hitching a cab. So long as there are lots of cab drivers, I'll be able to get a ride. Same goes for software and programmers. There are millions of working programmers, all competing, increasingly, in the same marketplace, so there's downward pressure on software prices. No-one today can create a huge monopoly out of a simple little software app, the way they could a dozen years ago or so, when it all seemed like magic. These days the mystery has gone, and people who make big, *big* money, as in normal times, are the ones who control the distribution channels. Open source benefits them to the disadvantage of authors, not the other way around.
The internet helps the little guy because it is a distribution channel that the big guys can't shut down. However, it can only work if people understand the basic Marxist dictum: a worker has the right to benefit from his work - a right that should never be taken away, nor lightly given away. (So, people should pay the piper just a little bit when they download the tune.)
You open source enthusiasts are using the wrong weapons, and you're hitting the wrong targets.
Re: I disagree, this is why
> if I wanted to start a software company (myself> and 5 of my buddies) who sold an OS (Mandrake Linux)
...well, if you want to set up a marketing company, it doesn't much matter what you sell -- could be open source software, could be fruit smoothies -- as long as there's a market out there...
> or an application server (Jboss) without the
> shoulders of open source to stand on what chance
> would I have?
Ah, another marketing company. So what you're saying is it's okay for people to make money from their marketing skills, but not okay to make money from their programming skills. Why is one thing good to sell, but not another?
Anyway, in answer to your question: Plenty of chance. Consider the Application Server market in the absence of Open Source. With the leading players charging silly money for their products, it is ripe for picking -- and there are plenty of small entrepreneurs who would be happy to go ahead and pick, except that now there's an open source product on the market, the barrier for entry has been raised quite high. Only a medium sized team with a good few months worth of venture capital can enter the market now (Unless they are a pure marketing company willing to go head-to-head with the JBoss folks.)
> 2) From a developer’s point of view, as mentioned
> above open source isn’t about making money for many;
> it’s about getting recognition, sharing our work, and
> mostly having fun.
That's great, really. But what programmers should do is not simply give up (in effect) their rights to significant code, but collectively devise a system whereby every contributor earns the automatic and enforceable right to a payment (even if it's a tiny payment) for code as it is used. A body would be set up to represent programmer's interests and to ensure that such payments were made when they were due. In other words, software should be CHEAP, but not FREE.
> It is much the same as people
> writing short stories and posting them.
Up to a point. The short stories that people post are usually not of a quality that could sustain commercial publishing - and the authors know that, or they wouldn't be posting the stuff.
> Open source
> allows programmers to work on fun projects that may
> or may not have any commercial viability.
Great, but when you join an "open source" (or not) team, sign a contract that guarantees you rights when the product is exploited commercially.
> we are usually a Steve Wozniak, not a
> Steve Jobs).
Exactly. That's why you need to be TOLD not to throw away your rights.
> At least with open source there is a
> chance that your project will get big, and the money
> will come rolling in (as it did with Linus Torvalds
> when given stock options from Redhat worth
> millions).
I think you'll find that Mr. Torvalds wasn't the big profiteer you imagine, but rather other people made a lot more money than he did.
>
> 3) Open code, and especially open standards is what
> makes innovation soar.
Open code is not the same thing as giving away your rights to some clever marketing brain who knows little about software but a lot about where to find a free lunch. The STL in C++ is open code, but you can bet its implementers get paid.
Re: OPEN SOURCE IS A COMUNITARIAN EFFORT!!!
> However, it can only work if people understand> the basic Marxist dictum: a worker has the right to
> benefit from his work
Yes, and I dare say that everyone who has contributed to an open source project has benefited. Perhaps not monetarily, but who are you to dictate how one should choose to be compensated?
If someone is really interested in the cash flow compensation, there are many avenues open to them - work for "the man", start your own business, sell crack... whatever floats your boat.
Hell, some people like me do both. I earn a fair wage slinging code by day and at night I contribute to and use open source projects.
But, just to be safe, if my actions cause the further decline of Western Civilization, a big mea culpa all around...
Re: Open Source is a Bad Thing
> I mean half the> developers are unemployed because of the hundreds of
> millions of dollars into developing a products that
> no one wants and you don't really know that until its
> all spent. That sounds like a lovely way to make
> money.
You could be right. But coding for a salary is questionable anyway.
Great Topic! Let's Hear The Other Side ...
Of the issue on OSS.Simone Bordet presented Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and The Bazaar" for public consumption -- and I give you an opposing viewpoint (criticized heavily by Raymond, of course):
Nikolai Bezroukov's "Open Source Software Development as a Special Type of Academic Research (Critique of Vulgar Raymondism)"
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_10/bezroukov/index.html
Please read both CatB and Bezroukov, in whichever order you prefer. The coverage is extensive on both sides of the fence, hitting every argument put forth by all concerned.
I certainly won't be sticking around to debate this topic.
Respectfully,
JT
be a professional
That's like saying that home builders or carpenters should never give up ownership of their work--they should just try to get people to rent it in perpetuity. If you can get people to agree, it's a great way of making money, but it is absurd.The fact is that many open source programmers view themselves as professionals: they get hired and paid to do a job, they do the job, and afterwards, it makes no sense to hold on to the products.
You also seem to think that programmers have a choice in the matter. They don't: in the long run, Microsoft-like business models are not sustainable. For commodity software, the price necessarily goes down to zero, driven by customers.
Re: OPEN SOURCE IS A COMUNITARIAN EFFORT!!!
> How do you think big companies get hold of IP rights> in the first place? By persuading inventive
> individuals to give up their rights in exchange for a
> salary.
IMHO, you miss the point. An individual that contributes to open source does not do it for money. What stands behind is a gift culture (to cite ESR).
[snip]
> As to imagining a situation in which all IP is
> privately owned, such a situation is perfectly fine
> by me. The fact that taxis are all privately owned
> does not prevent me from hitching a cab. So long as
> there are lots of cab drivers, I'll be able to get a
> ride. Same goes for software and programmers. There
> are millions of working programmers, all competing,
> increasingly, in the same marketplace, so there's
> downward pressure on software prices. No-one today
> can create a huge monopoly out of a simple little
> software app, the way they could a dozen years ago or
> so, when it all seemed like magic. These days the
> mystery has gone, and people who make big, *big*
> money, as in normal times, are the ones who control
> the distribution channels. Open source benefits them
> to the disadvantage of authors, not the other way
> around.
>
> The internet helps the little guy because it is a
> distribution channel that the big guys can't shut
> down.
Above you say internet cannot be shut down by the big guys, so expand on what do you think a distribution network controlled by the big guys is.
I agree with another post, that says that small guys are helped by open source since they can sell support on open source, or support about solutions based on open source products.
Look, Scott McNealy (Sun's CEO), does not think like you: he's saying open source will diminish revenue of the big guys.
So, hey, we have a big guy worried about open source and you worried about big guys
> However, it can only work if people understand
> the basic Marxist dictum: a worker has the right to
> benefit from his work - a right that should never be
> taken away, nor lightly given away. (So, people
> should pay the piper just a little bit when they
> download the tune.)
We all know where Marxism is gone.
What I did not get is what really worries you.
Are you worried about your IP being stolen ? No problem, don't expose it.
If you're worried about mine, for example (since I am an open source project's contributor), save your time
If you're worried about the economic model, and you see a terrific world where big guys eat small guys, and you are a small guy, relax: David has beaten Goliath long ago
AFAIK, no one has the copyright about how a TV works: it's technology free for everyone, and you just pay the envelope, not the technology. You can build your own TV without paying anyone, right ?
Think about how many other cases of technology or innovation are free or, better yet, open source (with an extended meaning that everyone can contribute to improve the technology) - surgery being one example only.
How do you feel when you hitchhike a guy that could not find a cab ? If you feel bad because you've stolen money to a cab driver, then I can understand your thoughts, but I don't agree with you.
Peace
Simon
Re: be a professional
I'm sorry Mark , but MS-like business model is a VERY sustainable.