Open Source Community's Double Standard 336
AlexGr writes to point out a really good point Matt Asay raises in his CNET News Blog: Why do we praise closed source companies who open up a little bit, but damn open source companies who close down a little bit? "Deja vu. Remember 2002? That's when Red Hat decided to split its code into Red Hat Advanced Server (now Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and Fedora. Howls of protest and endless hand-wringing ensued: How dare Red Hat not give everything away for free? Enter 2007. MySQL decides to comply with the GNU General Public License and only give its tested, certified Enterprise code to those who pay for the service underlying that code (gasp!). Immediately cries of protest are raised, How dare MySQL not give everything away for free?"
Human Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: If a girl is a real bitch then people expect her to be a bitch and if she is suddenly nice one day, then people say "Wow, she's so nice today". But if someone is nice all the time then one day gets angry people say "What's wrong with her, sheesh."
Its not a double standard, its human nature. Nuff said, discussion over.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that a double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are they pushing this misconception of what open source means? AFAIK, it doesn't mean "give everything away for free" it means "the source is open".
I don't think its really a double standard... (Score:3, Insightful)
The open source community wants open source. They'll applaud when a company goes towards that goal and they'll get upset when a company moves away.
I don't think that qualifies as a double standard.
Community is not one entity (Score:2, Insightful)
Not everybody in the community will roar on the same topic, so you will always get mixed results when you summarize the comments.
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies that are moving towards being more Closed are denigrated.
Where's the problem?
If find this surprising too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a double standard. It's a rational standard: Improvement is good, regression is bad. Becoming more open is good, becoming less open is bad. Ignoring this in order to be "fair" and avoid being accused of a "double standard" is just stupid.
Why do we praise slave states (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is not a "double standard" unless you use the current "mainstream media" Orwellian definition of "fairness."
The predjudice is for freedom, openness and opportunity. When you compound closing of source by the inclusion of earlier community contributions, testing and evangelism - you then reduce freedom to a marketing tool.
Re:How is that a double standard? (Score:0, Insightful)
Because Open Source is a philosophy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Many people in the Open Source community believe that open source is the natural and correct state of software -- indeed, that it is equivalent to free speech -- and that closing it is comparable to throwing political dissidents in jail. Naturally, every move toward it will be lauded, and every move against it will be demonized.
Its own worst enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
Like it or not, companies rely on solid sources and suppliers. A supplier that does not have a reliable revenue stream just can't be relied upon. And not every company has the resources or desire to staff up and do all its own software development in-house. Commercial, for-profit software has a serious role in business. And that means all involved in it need to make money. Giving away everything - for free - puts a big crimp on that.
When I work with some of the big boys in the consumer electronics market to qualify a new factory, they don't just audit the floor, the QA department, and the PMs. They look at the suppliers, they look at financials, they look at receivables, they look at other customers. Because if they are going to rely upon this new factory, they want to know it's got a future outside of just them. It's got to be stable.
It's REALLY HARD to make that case when your products are available for free, and you're trying to rely upon pure support as your only income stream...
Re:How is that a double standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone doesn't know what a double standard is. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing inconsistent about praising people for opening up a little bit, while condemning those that close down a little bit. We praise ANY move towards openness, and condemn ANY move away from it. How is that a double standard.
Allow me to illustrate using the oft neglected fruit analagy:
I gleefully watch my strawberry plants grow little fruit that ripen into perfect sweet strawberries, but watch me complain when my delicious strawberries start rotting and become ever less their original strawberry goodness.
Why oh why do I praise the things as they become ripe, but criticise them as they rot! I am such a hypocrit. Hmm.
Open source is (Score:4, Insightful)
If the NVidia drivers really are so hard to maintain, then they should break in the future... if closed source software really does run slower with more bugs then I should notice it.
I'm all for open source software, and I can identify with the ideals of the FOSS movement, but I also see that there is sometimes a need for software that works well, even if it is closed source.
I would rather have a closed source project that worked perfectly than an open source product that is a work in progress.
Linux has grown by leaps and bounds and is perhaps one of the best examples of open source does right, but the political figures in the linux world, while entertaining, do nothing but hurt the product with their constant bickering and injection of personal politics into a product that should be "free".
Re:Human Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is: IMHO (and RMS's opinion) non-free software is unethical, because it's basically a scam: making software is a service with value; making copies of software is of (marginally) zero value. So, the GPP is right on the mark.
If a company that makes (unethical) proprietary software starts making some (ethical) Free Software, it is (1) improving its act and (2) contributing to the pool of Free Software.
If a company that makes Free Software starts making proprietary software, it is (1) starting to make unethical things and (2) contributing less to the pool of Free Software.
So, that's the reason why we praise non-free-software companies that open um and we boo free-software companies that close down.
Putting it like the GPP: would you praise a country that permitted slave labour and then passwd a law freeing some of its slaves? (like mine did in 1871...) And would you protest a country without slaves that passed a law allowing for some to have slaves?
HTH.
Because (Score:3, Insightful)
What?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think this is a positive move for them. It's a positive move for the technology community as a whole as well. When my team looks at investing in technology for our business, we usually like to have a positive feeling that the technology will still be relevant 5 years and 10 years from when we purchase it. This move will make it easier for me to deploy MySQL in the enterprise, as I can now say to my review comity - "Look, they have a revenue source. They'll be around 5 years from now, and they'll be there to honor any support contract we purchase from them". Whereas in the past, I could only argue the point that they've been there a while, they should still be there a while from now. So, positive move in my book, not just for them, but for the technology community as a whole.
Re:Human Nature (Score:4, Insightful)
The purpose of running a business is to make money.
Businesses that do not intend to generate profit become nonprofit organizations.
Businesses that attempt to capitalize off any aspect of society, in any way, exist to make profit.
Companies that attempt to make money from open source software eventually exist to make money.
The moment a company accepts investments, rather than donations, it's nature changes to a for-profit model.
Companies that attempt to compete with major commercial enterprises WILL become like those commercial enterprises.
Redhat, MySQL, and other companies like them are closing much of their source because open source and significant profit are not particularly mutual, and are only pushed into appearing so by those who want to turn everything into open source.
The blame belongs to those who wish to contort open source software into what it was never meant to be, and into what it's creators never intended for it to be.
If you want to get rich, close your source and do your own work. If you want to contribute to society, open your source and ignore money.
If OSS is written well, it provides more alternatives to - and methods of - performing tasks than retail can ever hope to accomplish. However, if it is placed on a pedestal and designed to "beat" the "evil" proprietary options, it will, and so far inevitably DOES, become much like what it seeks to eliminate.
The end of an open sourced program's freedom begins when it's creators become an ever-expanding company. It shouldn't work like that, people believe it doesn't have to work like that, but somehow it always does.
Re:It's not the open source community (Score:2, Insightful)
GNU protects the freedoms of the software and as RMS has said before you can sell that software as long as the person who gets the software gets the four freedoms. It IS the open source community who don't seem to get the definition of FREE software as apposed to FREE (libre) software and simply see them as tied together.
I happen to agree strongly with libre software ideals and I think that it only becomes a problem when companies take away the freedoms of the users. We see this on the other financial end where companies or developers release freeware. There is a definite difference and people need to be made aware of it so that arguments about whether they are closing their software (taking away the freedoms of the users of that software) or simply charging for it don't happen.
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
See here [gnu.org] and here [fsf.org].
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:4, Insightful)
"making copies of software" - presuming one is collecting payment for same - is extremely valuable, as it allows for the obscene cost of software to be distributed in some fair fashion among the pool of users.
This is hardly unethical.
Free software receives free marketing in a voluntary exchange. so long as there are people who value the advertising higher than the marginal value of their technical efforts - free software will persist. But then so will direct payment software. The two markets are vastly different and cannot easily be compared. but discounting either seems somewhat puerile.
AIK
Re:Open source is (Score:3, Insightful)
You may have been mislead into missing the point. To me, it is all about choice. OpenSource underscores and enables that. When a platform is OpenSource, I am given a type of control over it that I would not get if it were closed source. Others having access to the code and the right to use it will generally result in options and variants popping up to fill in all sorts of opportunities - both real and imagined. The projects roll in and out like the tide. Things evolve, die, and are reborn. If you're unhappy with thing 'X', open Google and do a little searching. Chances are you just might find something better, or at a minimum something that shows the potential to be so.
Closed source software is also often a work in progress, so yes, your point is valid. But you could also leave the source part of of it. You, I, anyone, would likely take a perfect piece of software over one that is not perfect. That's a no-brainer. The functionality has to be there, and is primary.
Please don't bash Ubuntu for being 'preachy'. They offered you a prepackaged version of proprietary software as a CHOICE. You didn't have to dust off arcane instructions that only worked half way. Not even close. You clicked through a screen (that was, by the way, designed to ensure you weren't been duped into choosing something you did not want) and rebooted. That doesn't seem too painful at all to me. Ubuntu enabled you, assisted you, in making the machine behave according to your preference.
Compare that to most closed source offerings, if you will, and try to notice the contrast.
Mod parent up please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is not that coders shouldn't be supported as they do their thing. The point is that there should be a better mechanism put into place to pay for the creation of this valuable software that doesn't inherently destroy so much of its value once it is complete.
Is this really so hard to understand?
The arrogance of your post demonstrates my point (Score:3, Insightful)
Me! Me! Me! It's all about Me!
It even shows in your post, you try to make it seem as if baby boomers have been the only generation to protest. You discount the contributions of the current generation not because they haven't done anything, but because they aren't you, and thus are profoundly uninteresting to you self-involved boomers. Therefore, you have no idea what they may or may not have done, but simply assume they couldn't possibly be as great as you.
Maybe it's because I was raised by you selfish boomers that I despise your smug, arrogant, self centered and perpetually lazy attitude.
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand how you think a company can make money then. Don't get me wrong, I love free software, but, if a company is paying coders a salary to write code. When it is done and finished, if the company gives it away, not only are they not recouping their losses (salary payments), but, how will they make a profit if they don't sell said software they've already invested time and money into developing? At the very least, they need to recoup their non-recuring costs.
How do you propose they do that? If they can't...they can't pay coders to keep developing software.
I am finding your reasoning hard to understand. Can you please elaborate on your solution to fix it so that the they don't "inherently destroy so much of its value once it is complete".
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
One idea:
Create a pool of government funded money that goes towards software, and give everyone a vote for which projects they think are important.
Tally the votes, split the pool of money between the projects, running from the most votes to the least.
Don't give one share of the resources per vote though... determine an amount that guarantees a decent standard of living for those participants who are receiving support, and each person who gets anything gets that amount until the pool is empty.
Provide access to common technological infrastructure in a way that supports those whose work is deemed important by their peers first, then let the public at large use up any left over access for their pet projects.
Keep all their work in a common pool that is accessible to all.
Then remove all copyright protections from software.
If you can somehow manage to make a thriving living selling precompiled code in this environment, you're welcome to try, but the system doesn't back up your efforts in the slightest.
If people need custom software made because nothing in existence does what they need, they can of course hire someone to do it.
If there are times of plenty, chuck extra resources towards funding more peoples creativity. If there are times of scarcity, fund less people.
I'm working hard at building infrastructures for several creative industries at this very moment that will operate in a way similar to this. I'd post a link, but I can't handle a slashdotting at the moment.
People who talk about how the money for creative works just won't be there unless you can somehow compel people to surrender it need to realize... the public flat out will not be denied these things, and they will always construct a mechanism to support creation. That has been true throughout our history.
It seems rather foolish to suppose that at this point in our history, when we have more disposable wealth than at any documented time in the past, we will leave our artists, musicians and inventors out to dry just because we could if we wanted to. Nobody on either side of the fence wants to do that.
Now, that's just one idea. There are myriad ways that we can organize ourselves, and that is what we all ought to be talking about, instead of having these blind ideological clashes that don't result in anything except more wasted time and effort.
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're talking about games, there are several ways you can do a free software game. You release the engine as free software and then assert copyright on the artistic assets like textures, sound, music, character design, etc. You would be charging for your ideas, not for your software, if that makes sense, and users would not be able to freely distribute the artistic assets. I think that's a fine compromise between making money and being moral. In fact, if your game is any good and becomes popular, users will fix your engine's bugs, port it to new platforms, and start thriving mod communities around it, all while talking you up as the Awesome Guy who wrote the free software engine that made it all possible. It's not that different from what id has been doing, but Carmack's been keeping the engine proprietary for a few years to make money from licensing and then it gets GPL'ed. I have zero problem with that.
As far as being evil for writing non-free software? Well, yes, it is evil. There are different degrees of evil; if I don't want to buy your game because it's nonfree, then I don't have to. But if you write software that blocks DVDs from being played on machines you don't like, that's a lot more evil. And if you were to, say, extort people for money to fix bugs in your mission-critical software, that's about as evil as you can get in software. For those of us who believe it to be a moral issue, not acting morally is evil. Personally I'm more of a realist than some people I could name, and I respect the individual's right to make his own choices. I've even written proprietary software before, and I'll probably write more in the future, but doing so is always wrong to some degree, and I have to choose if it's far enough over the line that I won't participate.
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I could go on like this all day, but I'll stop with this:
I do not want other people deciding what software I want or should be allowed to pay for. If I feel like coughing up a few grand on Exchange Server, that's my right. If I'd rather save my money and run Sendmail, that's also my right. Our current system allows both to exist simultaneously, which is perfectly fine by me. Any system that begins to dictate what software I or anyone else will spend money on is a system that I will fight vociferously against, because I should be free to choose whether I want free software or not. That's what freedom means - it means having the right to make a choice, even if it's the wrong one.
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be unethical if RMS were to restrict others to this practice with out their consent to the terms of the license.