7 ms·

Oh, my. It is free as in "freedom", you idiot, not free as in "gratis", RMS would tell you. And he would be right. You've debunked only your own misunderstandin

by pcof 17y ago

Oh, my. It is free as in "freedom", you idiot, not free as in "gratis", RMS would tell you. And he would be right. You've debunked only your own misunderstanding of the problem...

mixmax 17y ago
I think you misunderstood the point he's trying to make. Here's the conclusion of the article: The problem is that FOSS is part of an equation that has never been properly balanced. The other part of the equation is an economic one and one that has not been thought through. Instead ad hoc and unconvincing explanations have been floated for why FOSS makes money when in fact, as presently constituted, it so often does not and is parasitic on conventional capitalism or state money It's a rant about the economics of FOSS, not freedom. And you know what? He's right.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  There is a model that deals with this kind of problem, it's called the ransom model (not the most ideal name but it gets the point across nicely). It was used successfully on blender, the basic idea is you build what you have to build closed source, the risk is yours. And then when you've built up a following you set your ransom price, the price that has to be met for you to open up the source. If the product is any good I doubt it would be hard for the author to get his minimum wage and the world would be a better place. Free software, so many choices :)
  - mixmax 17y ago
    That's actually a really interesting model. Here's the Wikipedia entry on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system (redirect from ransom model) It's not free as in beer though.
- BrentRitterbeck 17y ago
  Open source is a great thing, but I fear that it has led many to believe that they are entitled to the software (both the use and the source) they are using.
  - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
    You should have access to the source of the software you use, according to FOSS advocates.
    - BrentRitterbeck 17y ago
      You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software. My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stallman says.
      - lutorm 17y ago
        You do have a right to the source code if it's free software. Your argument is analogous to saying that the right to vote is not a right at all, because it only applies to democratic countries. There are no universal rights, yet there are rights.
        BrentRitterbeck 17y ago
        I wasn't talking about just open source software several posts up the chain. I intended the comment to mean that FOSS seems to be giving people the idea that ALL software should have viewable source.
        mixmax 17y ago
        That's a strawman argument. Of course you have a right to the code if it's free (as in freedom) software - that's the point!. If it isn't you don't. The parent was pointing out that many people feel that they have a right to the source of closed source software because of FOSS. Which they don't.
        pingswept 17y ago
        That's a good point. Despite being something of a FOSS zealot myself, I agree that I have no rights whatsoever to the source of closed source software. I tend to shy away from closed source software for that reason, but so what-- I shy away from horror movies, fax machines, and American cars as well.
- omail 17y ago
  pcof's point still stands. Freedom is about lowering barriers, barriers which cost money to otherwise bypass. FOSS provides off-the-shelf parts for software engineers. Even Microsoft has used FOSS code in Windows.
- DarkShikari 17y ago
  No he isn't. If Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they open source the software, and improvements to it by outside contributors result in them saving another $500,000. Then, Company Y adopts the software and uses it to save $2,000,000. They improve it as well, which results in them saving another $500,000 and Company X saving another $300,000. Total profit: $3.8m Compare this to the alternative: Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they keep the software closed. No contributions are made by outside users. Then, Company Y writes their own version of the software for $700,000 and uses it to save $1,500,000, less because they don't have the improvements made by outside contributors. They don't have the logic from Company X to combine with theirs, so they don't improve it, and they don't save any extra money. Company X doesn't save money either, since they don't get anything back. Total profit: $1.1m Everyone involved made more money in the first situation than the second, despite Company X giving up their source code to be used by other companies as well. This works completely fine under existing systems and requires nobody to arbitrarily throw money at open source for no potential gain. Open source is the free-market solution to the problem of inefficiency due to competition--everyone implementing their own versions of software and in the end generating a worse result than if they had worked together.
  - mixmax 17y ago
    Another alternative is that a nimble startup creates a piece of software to solve the problem and sells it to 1000 companies at $10.000 a pop. This way the companies get their software even cheaper, and another beautiful startup is born. With a contrived example you can prove anything :-)
    - DarkShikari 17y ago
      Of course, but most of the time when software is created for an internal use, the company doesn't want to be in the business of selling said product.
      - 17y ago

by pcof 17y ago

Oh, my. It is free as in "freedom", you idiot, not free as in "gratis", RMS would tell you. And he would be right. You've debunked only your own misunderstanding of the problem...

mixmax 17y ago

I think you misunderstood the point he's trying to make. Here's the conclusion of the article: The problem is that FOSS is part of an equation that has never been properly balanced. The other part of the equation is an economic one and one that has not been thought through. Instead ad hoc and unconvincing explanations have been floated for why FOSS makes money when in fact, as presently constituted, it so often does not and is parasitic on conventional capitalism or state money It's a rant about the economics of FOSS, not freedom. And you know what? He's right.

jacquesm 17y ago
There is a model that deals with this kind of problem, it's called the ransom model (not the most ideal name but it gets the point across nicely). It was used successfully on blender, the basic idea is you build what you have to build closed source, the risk is yours. And then when you've built up a following you set your ransom price, the price that has to be met for you to open up the source. If the product is any good I doubt it would be hard for the author to get his minimum wage and the world would be a better place. Free software, so many choices :)
- mixmax 17y ago
  That's actually a really interesting model. Here's the Wikipedia entry on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system (redirect from ransom model) It's not free as in beer though.
BrentRitterbeck 17y ago
Open source is a great thing, but I fear that it has led many to believe that they are entitled to the software (both the use and the source) they are using.
- aaronblohowiak 17y ago
  You should have access to the source of the software you use, according to FOSS advocates.
  - BrentRitterbeck 17y ago
    You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software. My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stallman says.
    - lutorm 17y ago
      You do have a right to the source code if it's free software. Your argument is analogous to saying that the right to vote is not a right at all, because it only applies to democratic countries. There are no universal rights, yet there are rights.
      - BrentRitterbeck 17y ago
        I wasn't talking about just open source software several posts up the chain. I intended the comment to mean that FOSS seems to be giving people the idea that ALL software should have viewable source.
      - mixmax 17y ago
        That's a strawman argument. Of course you have a right to the code if it's free (as in freedom) software - that's the point!. If it isn't you don't. The parent was pointing out that many people feel that they have a right to the source of closed source software because of FOSS. Which they don't.
        pingswept 17y ago
        That's a good point. Despite being something of a FOSS zealot myself, I agree that I have no rights whatsoever to the source of closed source software. I tend to shy away from closed source software for that reason, but so what-- I shy away from horror movies, fax machines, and American cars as well.
omail 17y ago
pcof's point still stands. Freedom is about lowering barriers, barriers which cost money to otherwise bypass. FOSS provides off-the-shelf parts for software engineers. Even Microsoft has used FOSS code in Windows.
DarkShikari 17y ago
No he isn't. If Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they open source the software, and improvements to it by outside contributors result in them saving another $500,000. Then, Company Y adopts the software and uses it to save $2,000,000. They improve it as well, which results in them saving another $500,000 and Company X saving another $300,000. Total profit: $3.8m Compare this to the alternative: Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they keep the software closed. No contributions are made by outside users. Then, Company Y writes their own version of the software for $700,000 and uses it to save $1,500,000, less because they don't have the improvements made by outside contributors. They don't have the logic from Company X to combine with theirs, so they don't improve it, and they don't save any extra money. Company X doesn't save money either, since they don't get anything back. Total profit: $1.1m Everyone involved made more money in the first situation than the second, despite Company X giving up their source code to be used by other companies as well. This works completely fine under existing systems and requires nobody to arbitrarily throw money at open source for no potential gain. Open source is the free-market solution to the problem of inefficiency due to competition--everyone implementing their own versions of software and in the end generating a worse result than if they had worked together.
- mixmax 17y ago
  Another alternative is that a nimble startup creates a piece of software to solve the problem and sells it to 1000 companies at $10.000 a pop. This way the companies get their software even cheaper, and another beautiful startup is born. With a contrived example you can prove anything :-)
  - DarkShikari 17y ago
    Of course, but most of the time when software is created for an internal use, the company doesn't want to be in the business of selling said product.
    - 17y ago