Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

The Open Code Market 143

Posted by Hemos from the making-money-in-open-source dept.
There's a new article in First Monday entitled "The Open Code Market". Jordi Carrasco-Munoz, the author has some interesting comments about the article itself, which I've put below, but the overall direction of the piece is, in his words: "In short, The Open Code Market aims to become a Free Market for software, as well as a market for Free Software. The OCM introduces into the Free/Open Source movement an economic incentive, to help align the priorities of Free/Open Source developers with those of the end users. "
Jordi writes: "

The Open Code Market

The peer reviewed magazine FirstMonday has published one paper I wrote on the business possibilities of Open Source titled "The Open Code Market".

In short, The Open Code Market aims to become a Free Market for software, as well as a market for Free Software. The OCM introduces into the Free/Open Source movement an economic incentive, to help align the priorities of Free/Open Source developers with those of the end users.

Between the final draft and publication, I received many valuable comments on the idea. I am very grateful to all those who dedicated some of their valuable time to read the paper and make insightful comments.

Some of those comments led me to an earlier similar effort by Brian Behlendorf named SourceXchange (originally at www.sourcexchange.com). After contacting Brian, his comments were probably the most valuable, since he had gone through the the actual proces of running a project similar to what I am proposing.

His main line was that:
a) while the market made profits, it did not reach the levels of profitability that were expected in the middle of the dot.com boom, and investors looked for other (more lucrative) endevours
b) That the dot.com boom also addedd costs (high salaries, etc) to his attempt and
c) that it is difficult to commoditise software creation due to the uncertainties over time / effort required to write the software, and the difficulty of the role of "project manager".

My line on all this is that
- The project may be easier to develop now as expectations for profits (and costs) have decreased, and that sourcing on low-cost countries (i.e. India, Vietnam, etc.) would reduce costs significantly.
- I also expect that the market will take off only as Free Software/Open Source (Linux in particular) moves to the mass market of the desktop, thus generating the necessary economies of scale, visibility and consumer-mass. In my idea, the target end-users of the market are not IT companies, but mainly individuals with no IT knowled (nor desire to acquire it) and Small and Medium Enterprises with small or no IT departments. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Open Code Market More

The Open Code Market

Comments Filter:

  • DIY'ers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gabrill ( 556503 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:51AM (#7463363)
    I think I see a new class split. The do-it-yourselfers that appreciate the quality and flexibility of open source vs. the people who just want a working computer without configuration woes. Guess which one will spawn the new millionairs and monarchs?

    • Re:DIY'ers (Score:2, Funny)

      by Wudbaer ( 48473 )
      I think I see a new class split. The do-it-yourselfers that appreciate the quality and flexibility of open source vs. the people who just want a working computer without configuration woes. Guess which one will spawn the new millionairs and monarchs?

      According to Dilbert the latter. ;->
    • Guess which one will spawn the new millionairs and monarchs?

      There be a clue in the title, there be! :-)
    • Your rhetorical question may not have such an obvious answer as one might think. Is configuring a computer really the best use of your time?

      I rather spend time running a business/empire/enterprise than configuring a computer. It is a better use of time. Granted, a system admin might come along with a new program or technique that will change the industry and make him rich, but what is the chance of that happening? Me thinks you would stand a better chance playing the stock market: just short SCOX- ;0
      • "Is configuring a computer really the best use of your time?"

        Quite often, yes. It's the best use of my time if down the road it helps me accomplish something in the real world better or faster, or simply entertains me when I've nothing more pressing.

        It's also a lot more enjoyable than pushing a wordprocessor or accounts-receivable program, and since I can get other people to do those gruntwork jobs for me, why shouldn't I do what fits my brain best?
    • The do-it-yourselfers that appreciate the quality and flexibility of open source vs. the people who just want a working computer without configuration woes.

      This is the big problem with current Open Source world, IMO -- the current Open Source world seems oriented toward DIY'ers creating code for other DIY'ers. Its a BOF community of computer and software-loving people. The result is code that only another coder would love. What fraction of Open Source software packages "just works" without configurat
      • "This is the big problem with current Open Source world, IMO -- the current Open Source world seems oriented toward DIY'ers creating code for other DIY'ers."

        You say that as if it were a bad thing. Why do you feel this is a problem? I find it to be a solution.

        If the purpose of any program it to be useful, then this is great. If the purpose of any program is to sell a billion units, then I suppose this would be a problem.
        • "This is the big problem with current Open Source world, IMO -- the current Open Source world seems oriented toward DIY'ers creating code for other DIY'ers." You say that as if it were a bad thing. Why do you feel this is a problem? I find it to be a solution.

          Your point is excellent! Different types of computer users want different types of software. Code for coders is beautiful.

          I agree with you that "useful" is important and that software does not have "to sell a billion units". But I would argu
      • "The result is code that only another coder would love."

        What are you saying here? - surely the only people qualified to appreciate code are coders.

        "...away from cool code and toward ease-of-use."

        There's no link between the quality of the code and how easy to use it is. An easy to use interface is not indicative of the quality of the code and vice versa.

        "...make mainstream code, not coder's code?"

        If by "coder's code" you mean good elegant code that's not cranked out to meet commercially driven deadlines
      • This is the big problem with current Open Source world, IMO -- the current Open Source world seems oriented toward DIY'ers creating code for other DIY'ers. Its a BOF community of computer and software-loving people. The result is code that only another coder would love. What fraction of Open Source software packages "just works" without configuration, reading a manual, etc.

        I'm not sure about the overall fraction of open source, but I think that the majority of the most "popular and common" open source a

      • This is the big problem with current Open Source world, IMO -- the current Open Source world seems oriented toward DIY'ers creating code for other DIY'ers. Its a BOF community of computer and software-loving people. The result is code that only another coder would love. What fraction of Open Source software packages "just works" without configuration, reading a manual, etc. Don't confuse Open Source with the Linux community -- the two biggest Windows compatible Open Source projects, Mozilla and Open Office

      • Your $10 could get you something other than the final software. It could get you:

        • The ability to add feature requests
        • The option to vote on implementation decisions
        • Some control over the platforms that will be targeted, and tested on

        Basically, you could pay a bit of money to have some control over the development process.

    • Wrong split. *A few of* the DIY crowd will have the vision to create something generally useful, and the drive to see it to market. The "just make it work" crowd will reward them with money. The rest of the DIYers (the onlookers) will be divided into those who say, "cool, the good guys are winning" and those who are hurt that *their* nifty ideas go unappreciated.

      Oh, yeah, some of the "good guys" will discover such a talent for making their businesses grow that they'll forget their original motivations a
    • I suppose an important question in an organization like this is: Who's copyright goes in the license? Does the OCM get put in, or does the developer who did the actual work?

  • Try before Buy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WebfishUK ( 249858 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:51AM (#7463368)
    I could see this kind of thing working as a try before you buy market - use the code and pay when you release the product.

    • I would hope that OCM would be better than "try before you buy." I have reached a stage in life where I want products that do what I want them to do. I don't care to spend time trying software in a production environment because I find that so much of it is a waste of time.

      OCM would seem to support the commissioning of software projects or modifications. Thus I could go the Market, submit a request (e.g., "I want a real-time transparent version of CVS") and various groups might make counter-offers of
      • Basically, this sounds like eLance [elance.com], with the addition of a QA middleman and an OSS repository for finished products. Frankly, I don't see how such a thing could take off. The QA middleman is going to add significantly to costs, and provides dubious value. Most QA problems lie in a sloppy specification to begin with, meaning that a 3rd party tester brought in at the end isn't likely to help much...

  • this all sounds great... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Major_Small ( 720272 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:52AM (#7463370) Journal
    but you have to look at most computer users... most people don't know about programming and think an open-source program means that somebody will come in and hack their computer...

    try explaining the good side of open-source programs to people who have never written a program in their life... you'll see what I mean...

    I can't see much revenue comming from ordinary computer users who would see this as a 'hacker's' network or something. where they should direct themselves is towards the programming communities and (mostly) businesses...

    • Re:this all sounds great... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DarkSarin ( 651985 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:20AM (#7463561) Homepage Journal
      i must respectfully disagree. i have managed to successfully explain why open source programs are good to a number of non-programmers. Even my mother, who is one of the most computer illiterate people on the planet, was able to grasp the concept.

      Granted, she did not come into the situation with a bias against it, but several of the people I know have.

      I know it feels good to say that we who watch /. are the 3l33t, but the truth is that if you really want to, it is possible to explain most of the concepts of open source to just about anyone. It doesn't mean that they will agree.

      Personally, I take the view that humans are pretty smart.
      • I know it feels good to say that we who watch /. are the 3l33t

        I never have, and never will make that claim...

        it is possible to explain most of the concepts of open source to just about anyone.

        i'm not talking about computer-illiterate... i'm talking about the people with a basic knowledge of computers and how they work. the people that encrypt their emails because they think it will hide what they're sending from a network admisitrator...

        • > the people that encrypt their emails because they > think it will hide what they're sending from a
          > network admisitrator...

          And won't it ? I consider myself a competent network administrator, but barring local access to the sending or receiving computer I couldn't read an encrypted email. What did you mean by this ?
          • Yes it will, unless that admin has access to the passphrase of the recipient and their private key (assuming some sort of public key encryption), or to technology capable of constructing the private key given the public one.

            Encryption can't be relied upon 100% if you're keeping secrets from a large government or corporation and are worth their trouble to care about, but in all other situations, you're pretty much certain that it won't be broken. (Assuming a good implementation of strong crypto, yadda yadda
            • unless that admin has access to the passphrase of the recipient and their private key (assuming some sort of public key encryption), or to technology capable of constructing the private key given the public one.

              If it's the former, blame the user (what are you doing giving out your passphrase??). And if you're into keeping secrets from the gov't (and the gov't cares), you should have your secret key (protected by a strong passphrase) stuffed away in a USB key that you keep on your person at all times.

              If
          • I did mean local access to the sending computer... there are several applications that give a network admin local access from a remote location...

            I should be more specific there... i was talking about somebody who has the police working with a network admin to check the emails...

      • > i have managed to successfully explain why open source programs are good to a number of non-programmers. Even my mother, who is one of the most computer illiterate people on the planet, was able to grasp the concept.

        That's not really fair though. I'm not arguing against the merits of open source, but I can get my three year old to agree with me on most things because he lacks familiarity with the subjects to form an opinion of his own.
      • Even my mother, who is one of the most computer illiterate people on the planet, was able to grasp the concept.

        Yeah, but she's a computer-illerate Mom, which is about three steps on the evolutionary ladder above PHB's. _She_ will listen to reason and consider alternative ideas presented to her.

        My wife isn't very computer literate either (though I have taught her enough so that she can start teaching herself, she completely set up and installed a laser printer without my help which impressed me), and she
      • Personally, I take the view that humans are pretty smart.


        You must be new to this planet. <g>
      • i have managed to successfully explain why open source programs are good to a number of non-programmers.
        Realy shouldn't be to difficult, didn't some guy named John F. Nash get a Nobel Prize in economics for basicaly the same thing?

        Well OK the movie said it was about getting a bunch of nerd's laid, and how their chances would be imporved by cooperating, that's pretty much game theory and like open source code developement isn't it.
        • Realy shouldn't be to difficult, didn't some guy named John F. Nash get a Nobel Prize in economics for basicaly the same thing?

          Yes, in essense, he proved mathematically that there are cases where collaboration is far more efficient than a purely rivalrous market.

          His work has been used in anti-trust cases (illegal collusion) but also other legitimate market analysis. This proposed "Open Code Market" and the OSS community in general would most definitely be relevant. (Anybody looking for a thesis idea?)
      • "Personally, I take the view that humans are pretty smart."

        Take me to your leader, he must be one dumb SOB... I'll take over your planet in less than a week while I've got him chasing the imaginary shiny thing under the table (same technique I use with most of those "pretty smart" humans you speak of).
        • Pessimism at its finest... oh well.

          It seems I misspoke somewhat. Let me rephrase:

          Personally, I take the view that humans (as indivdiduals) are pretty smart, but collectively manage to do some really stupid things. Unfortunately, research shows that humans in groups actually make better decisions than do individuals.

          Sorry to dissappoint.

    • this all sounds great... but it's not a market (Score:4, Insightful)

      by harriet nyborg ( 656409 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:26AM (#7463601)
      Game theory shows that market failure occurs when one person's consumption does not diminish the ability of others to also consume the product, a condition called "nonrivalous consumption" or "jointness of consumption."

      Market failure can also occur when people who have not paid cannot be prevented from consuming the good, a condition called nonexcludability. Public goods by definition exhibit both jointness of consumption and nonexcludability.

      Ergo, it may be a resource, but it can't be called a market.

      • That's a good point and the intimately related, if less eloquently stated, question is whether ideas really should be sold as property at all.
        I've been on both sides of the fence and technically I still am, but I'm a lot closer to being all the way on the FSF side these days.
        For years I've worked in educational multimedia publishing and I've seen the market go all to hell, but I'm still in because I did so much work in the past that there's no such thing as being out. New work in the same vein is
        • There's nothing wrong with selling ideas as property.

          The problem comes when people start thinking that they have a hope in hell of maintaining exclusive control over reproduction/dissemination of the idea (once they've released it).

          That used to be just about viable in the days of printing presses and book binding.

          These days, if you want to sell an idea you have to sell it when you release it. This is because it is only property in the strictest definition of the word whilst it's in your exclusive possess
      • I disagree with the nonrivalous consumption part.

        The true product in this market is not the software, but the developer time. If a developer is working on one commission, other consumers cannot also be getting work done from that developer on their commissions. So, the consumption here is rivalous.

        The nonexcludability portion I do agree with.
    • I had a client who believed that if they hosted their website on linux they had to release the source to all their software. They believed this for 2 years while their IIS machines were hacked 3 times, even fully patched. (they are somewhat of a target because he has many 'ub3r l337' customers). I helped them move to Linux w/Apache + MySQL and charge them a small fee every month for keeping them patched, maininging the security policies, and to offer advice about anything and everything they ask about.
    • You could try be explaining the Caesar cypher and then a good encryption method (without going too much into the math). Should be pretty simple and interesting enough to get all the way through. For anyone else who might be reading: Caesar cypher was a weak method of encryption that just replaced each letter with the one 3 after it in the alphabet and after z, you go back to a. a=d b=e, etc... This was only secure as long as the person you're hiding your info from don't know how it works. It's very bre
    • try explaining the good side of open-source programs to people who have never written a program in their life

      "It's free."

      (this lasts til some other nearby geek decides to put on a dominance display and quibbles over the connotation of "Free")
    • "try explaining the good side of open-source programs to people who have never written a program in their life..."

      Okay: the good side of open-source programs is that you can get programs which meet your need but could never make it to market because the number of people with such a need is too small to make it profitable.

      Simple enough?

  • Levels of profit expected during dot.com boom? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Per Abrahamsen ( 1397 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:58AM (#7463420) Homepage
    Did he mean the site didn't run with big losses and an unsustainable business plan?

    I that was what was expected during the .com boom.

  • Some questions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheSpoom ( 715771 ) * <slashdot@@@uberm00...net> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:06AM (#7463460) Homepage Journal
    I think it's a very good idea, and I hope it will take off. That said, there's a couple things I wonder.

    • What incentives to companies have to use this?


    • The obvious answer is of course that the code can be seen and updated by the OSS community but IMHO most don't see the value in that and would rather stick with their own development team to do their work for them (think the Microsoft argument of having someone to fire).

    • How do we convince companies that their software will be supported?


    • My guess would be that it's effectively the same for them (since they could commission patches much the same as they could pay their programmers to update software) but again, management probably doesn't like it that they have to pay someone out of house to do it.


    It's about time that someone created a method such as this to make the creation of open source code generate some funds for the programmer. If companies can see that keeping these programs open can be beneficial not only to them in the support of the OSS community but the the industry as a whole then I think everyone should be benefitted by something like this.
    • The obvious answer is of course that the code can be seen and updated by the OSS community but IMHO most don't see the value in that and would rather stick with their own development team to do their work for them (think the Microsoft argument of having someone to fire).

      Actually, I think companies will see a major advantage in paying for new features in free software. Instead of having to bear the full cost of adding a feature to the code, they'll be able to pay only a fraction of it by throwing money in

      • You hit the nail on the head (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        However, I have to wonder...what will existing maintainers of a given project do when a company pays someone else to add a feature to their application? I suppose it would depend on the maintainer, but would there be a definate trend?

        Bingo, and that is the flaw. There is no way you can compete on cost with developers in Russia, India, China, ... The original developer will lose control of the future direction of their creation. Not that this can't happen now, it just doesn't that often. But this new
        • Bingo, and that is the flaw. There is no way you can compete on cost with developers in Russia, India, China, ... The original developer will lose control of the future direction of their creation. Not that this can't happen now, it just doesn't that often. But this new fiscal dynamic could changes things. And since it is open source there is nothing you can do to stop it either.

          In practical application, people will trust the original developer/team more than a third party hired to add a feature. If a th

  • Something like Expert's Exchange? (Score:3, Informative)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:08AM (#7463475)
    It sounds like you are proposing something akin to Experts-Exchange [experts-exchange.com], but with a few differences. OCM would use real dollars, instead of points. OCM would also encourage the creation and reuse of code, not just answers to IT questions. OCM might incorporate private collaborative project spaces to help a shifting group of workers create commissioned code.
    • If you remove the hyphen from Experts-Exchange, you have ExpertSexChange.
    • No more like Flashline [flashline.com] where they try and match clients with developers. Not an idea that took off. End users do not have the remotest use or interest in this type of service and its much more practical for small companies to develop symbiotic relationships with small software houses/individual developers rather then mix and match software from God knows where that leads to more complex solutions and gives developers the upper hand in deals.

      Personally I think its a pretty naive approach to an idea that
      • With the creation of client syndicates, desired features can be had at a fraction of the cost of paying a software house to do it. Several companies can pledge smaller amounts rather than one company paying the lump sum.
        • You are so right.

          Moreover, you can extrapolate from "several companies pledging smaller amounts" until you reach "thousands to millions of end users pledging even tinier amounts".

          A small mental step for you, but a giant paradigm shift for mankind.
    • Also http://www.freeagent.com/ Seems to be what the guy is proposing..
  • I'm working on an open-source location search ( Mobilemaps [mobilemaps.com]) which aims to create a collaborative market for developers/portals using it.

    The right service in this case is geotargeted advertising for local businesses wanting to gain some visibility on the net. It's an extension of a proven business model used by search engines like Google.

    The plan is there's no need for developers to be paid for their code, they just earn money by participating in the advertising service by operating the location searc

  • Mixed gut reaction... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LilJC ( 680315 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:12AM (#7463509)
    This is an interesting idea, though at its heart seems to be nothing more than a distributed consulting company.

    Suppose right now today my company wants a custom feature or a bug fixed in some OS software. We can pull out our checkbook and hire X to do Y for $Z. If it's OS work, that's just part of our contract. AFAIK, this happens already.

    So what is the innovation here? To create a "market" that is basically a consulting company for OS work? Doesn't seem to be...after all, the article specifically says this is not limited to GPL (and that didn't seem to be followed up with "or other open-source license"). It says open code, but does that mean the results must be open or simply the basis must be open and the end results can only link to open libraries if they are closed?

    Or is it to create a consulting company that uses contractors? I don't believe that's it either... contract consulting work is already routinely outsourced and sub-contracted.

    Or is it to organize a commercial venture based on the work of OS? This might be the real heart of the issue. There is where I get mixed:

    Surely funded development of OS software advances them, but this could turn sour quickly (think Red Hat!). Now, with varied customers with individual requests I'd like to think that the market could not take on a direction with its own agenda, but I would like to hear some arguments for and against this. The model indicates this is for-profit. Thus, requests from the highest bidders would probably get preference. Supppose MS throws a few billion at time-consuming features that add little value to the product. Why wouldn't this market eat that up? But think about the cost of this. While developers add features such as scrollbars changing color through a gradient to indicate how far down you've scrolled, they are not working on fundamental issues that need to be addressed before they blow up in our faces. Suppose SCO hires a company to request a feature which would infringe on SCO's IP such that there is a genuine IP infringement that they don't appear to have set up directly.

    I, for one, would rather have talented developers working on things like IPv6 implementation, that commercial investors probably won't want to fund, or at least wouldn't be able to compete with people who use the market as a tool against OS.

    I think any time something this scale is set up, it should be very carefully critiqued. Unfortunately, there's nothing stopping anyone from doing it if it turns out to be a set-up for OS disasters.

    • It says open code, but does that mean the results must be open or simply the basis must be open and the end results can only link to open libraries if they are closed?

      Maybe it's just me, but I find this sentence extremely difficult to parse. I think it's a special case for off-duty bookeepers....

  • SourceXchange reborn (Score:2, Informative)

    by mpieters ( 149981 )
    Mark Pratt of Beehive, Germany, has relaunched the SourceXchange idea:

    Open SourceXperts.com [opensourcexperts.com]

    Complete with the lame eX. It only launched on 10 November, so be gentle with yor 'how quiet here' comments.

  • "dot.com" (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:20AM (#7463560)
    Did anyone else read that as "dot dot com"?

  • Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IA-Outdoors ( 715597 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:22AM (#7463575)
    I also expect that the market will take off only as Free Software/Open Source (Linux in particular) moves to the mass market of the desktop

    Err, hello? RH desktop...dead. SUSE...wounded by Novell. SCO is bleeding any OSS-involved company with litigation. Who's going to take linux to the desktop or "mass market" as suggested here?

    I'm not saying this guy is wrong, but the OSS world has got some damage control to do. I'm confident it will pull through (my paycheck depends on it) but I would rethink using this as a justification for this project's market readiness.

    • > SUSE...wounded

      How you managed to mistake "bankrolled" for
      "wounded" is a puzzle.

      No, SCO isn't bleeding anybody with
      litigation. IBM isn't even sweating, let
      alone bleeding, and SCO has no other cases.

  • What problem? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    From the article:

    Of the several problems F/OSS faces today, one is the fact that it is free. Not as in freedom, but as in free beer. Both private users and business are at a loss when it is explained that there are thousands of people developing Free Software, for free. The immediate reaction is of disbelief, followed by the assumption that the software must be of low quality...consumers and businesses work for money, and they mistrust people who do not.

    Except the software is increasingly being used, and

    • the argument is commercial vendors screaming that free software is ruining their business model.

      the business model of selling bad software and buying out any competitors who make anything better?
  • Wasn't there a project recently (OSDN-related), that did this. Someone posts an order, people "bid" to work on the GPLed code, etc... it kinda flopped.
    I guess his primary difference is the OCM is the contractor.. "subcontracting" the coders instead of some completely un-regulated bid-market.
  • Always good.

    What are the connotations of this applied on a large scale though?

    Blogzine [blogzine.net]

  • The point? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Trurl ( 3494 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:39AM (#7463695)
    I believe that a project like this misses the point. As I see it, most Open Source developers do not write code because they want to Make The World A Better Place. Their motivation is not the satisfaction of users.

    Programmers write code because that's what they love to do. This is why there are dozens of editors, mailers, etc, rather than a single well-maintained application of each type. A coder says to himself "I feel like writing yet another mp3 ripper GUI". He proceeds to do so despite the fact that numerous examples already exist because his motivation is his own pleasure, rather than a desire to fill some gap.

    Trying create a carrot to dangle in front of these people is pointless. They don't want your carrot. They want to write the code that they want to write.

    • Re:The point? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by csnydermvpsoft ( 596111 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:00AM (#7463849)
      What prevents people from applying that same love of coding towards earning a paycheck as well? Isn't that one of everyone's main goals in life - to earn money doing something they enjoy?

      I've done plenty of projects, for pay, where I take my employer's requirements, make them my own, and enjoy it. In fact, I end up having more motivation than if I were working on something for myself, as there is the money factor to go along with the pleasure factor.

      Also, your assessment of motivation for open source coders is flawed. There is indeed a gap to fill, though it isn't usually shared by large numbers of people. In most cases, a coder writes a piece of software because it fills a need for that individual coder - it's not simply a case of "I feel like writing yet another mp3 ripper GUI," but instead more of a case of "I don't like any of the mp3 ripper GUI's out there, so I'll write my own."
      • >Isn't that one of everyone's main goals in life - to earn money doing something they enjoy?

        frankly... no. I want to do what I enjoy. Money doesn't come into it. Ofcourse, that's impossible... but it IS what many people want.
    • I am a programmer by profession. I am also a contributer to an Open Source project.

      The code I write for the company that employs me is generally work I have to do. No "save the world" type of stuff. It's just business.

      The code I write for the OSP is for fun. I like it. It's my hobby. This is why I do it. If I were to be paid for it, it might start feeling like a job, and that wouldn't be much fun...

      I cannot see myself working on an "Open Source" project and be paid for it as well.

      If I wanted to make ext
    • "Their motivation is not the satisfaction of users... [they] write code because that's what they love to do."

      I'd say most open source hobbyist coders do it for both reasons actually. While noone would do it if they didn't enjoy coding, it really is very satisfying to get emails from users telling you how cool they think your software is.
    • I want that carrot... Can I have the carrot if you don't want it? Please?

      Your assumption that coders do projects because "they feel like it" is wrong and assuming. We scratch an itch like someone else said here. We do something because something either doesn't work, there's no open source equivalent out already, it's new and innovative, or what's there simply doesn't do what we need it to.
    • Trying create a carrot to dangle in front of these people is pointless. They don't want your carrot. They want to write the code that they want to write.

      Uh yeah, that's the whole point of trying to arrange an alternate system so that other coders can write the code that end-users are willing to pay for. It's not like free open-source development would go away, but if you want a new feature added to your favourite app you can pay someone to add it instead of learning C and coding it yourself.

      I would imag

  • Not to seem arrogant, but (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lone_marauder ( 642787 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:48AM (#7463754)
    The OCM introduces into the Free/Open Source movement an economic incentive, to help align the priorities of Free/Open Source developers with those of the end users.

    The one thing Microsoft has done well is focus on end users. They are able to hock woefully inferior file, database, and mail server solutions because they make sure that Word's macro engine can cook your breakfast for you if you want it to. If users want a feature, it will be in the release product - performance, stability, and security be damned.

    I don't necessarily think we should follow MS in this regard. It doesn't seem to have really worked out for them. Let's focus on what is really attracting people to free software - choice.
    • Who's to say companies aren't going to pay to have bugs fixed? Or syndicates aren't going to pay to have the code audited for security?

      It does, however, bring up an important point. If a developer leaves behind a bug, is he required to fix it without pay, or does he get paid to fix it? There could be some nasty loops in there.
      • If a developer leaves behind a bug, is he required to fix it without pay, or does he get paid to fix it?

        I guess my point is that if a developer leaves behind a bug, people will choose to use other software. Moreover, the history of free software does not demonstrate the need for an artificial economy of quality - free software is already consistently better than that produced by the commercial marketplace. The point about user focus can be made, however, which is why I addressed it.

        Here's a question
    • It doesn't seem to have really worked out for them.

      Sure, becoming the #1 company in the world and the richest man on earth just proves your point, doesn't it? :-)

      Microsoft has decades before dissapearing, and will lead the software industry (in terms of revenue) for the coming years for sure.
      • Sure, becoming the #1 company in the world and the richest man on earth just proves your point, doesn't it? :-)

        Are you suggesting that the users, writers, and adherents of free software are trying to accomplish those things? Your argument to someone considering free software instead of Microsoft is that Microsoft will make more money if they do?

  • TopCoder Software is already doing this (Score:5, Informative)

    by srowen ( 206154 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:53AM (#7463789)
    TopCoder Software has being doing what this article describes for over a year:

    http://software.topcoder.com/

    In short they are trying to put a structured, process-oriented community development model into a design / development competition format (with cash incentives, both upfront and as royalties) for creating new software. The resulting work is marketed as a component library, and the community itself is marketed as a "no-shore" development resource.

    Check it out, it is a pretty good system -- the results are surprisingly good. I regularly participate in these projects.
    • So far I can't find info on rights to the code - it says that you can propose components and that solutions completed are added to their component catalog which can be licensed, but I'm not finding whether or not the programmer (or proposer or anyone involved in it) either keeps the rights to the code or gets free/discounted access to the component catalog.

      Interesting...

      8-PP

  • A bazaar in cathedral clothing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TrombaMarina ( 712932 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:58AM (#7463829)
    most of the success stories so far (Amazon, Google, etc.) are not new producers, but more efficient (and cheaper) middlemen.

    +1 Perceptive

    This solution helps to bring together two separated communities: Users and developers, cutting drastically (but not entirely) middlemen and their added costs... The OCM acts as clearing house by delivering the software to the client and the money to the developer

    The communities are not separated. The high level of communication between developer, tester, and user is the greatest strength of OpenSource software. They are sometimes the same person! By introducing a "clearing house" you are adding a middleman and thereby reducing efficiency.

    While the customer may be able to tell if the software works as requested, it cannot identify buggy, poorly written software, let alone know if the software presents a security risk. Thus, the OCM will also have to provide services as required.

    +1 Perceptive

    This is a difficult problem. Really difficult - and essentially unsolved by traditional development models. OpenSource itself is a solution to this problem. Code reviews, while one of the most useful tools for preventing these problems, are also one of the most labor-intensive (read "expensive").

    consumers and businesses work for money, and they mistrust people who do not

    Very true. But I believe this paper underrates the strength of (as Eric Raymond calls it) the gift culture. Essentially, OpenSource developers compete to give the biggest gift to the community. The bigger the gift, the more their standing within the community rises. This has worked pretty well the past 13 years or so.

    While I applaud the effort to pay these people for their gifts, I think it tries to shove a square peg into a round hole here. It changes the motivation from "give a big gift" to "give the user what they asked for". That raises many problems:

    1. What users ask for often isn't what they want. There's a curse (I think it's Russian) that goes, "May your every wish be instantly granted." Read any story about genies for examples of the problems with getting what you ask for.
    2. Even if a specific enhancement meets a user's short-term needs (as this system encourages) there is little or no encouragement to provide an extensible solution. By comparison, "Giving the greatest gift" encourages long-term extensibility.
    3. Even if the enhancement is extensible, it may break something else that used to work. Again, the compensation scheme is weak here.

    The developer rating system would address these problems to some degree, but all ratings systems come with their own problems. Look at what OpenSource has accomplished so far. I use all OpenSource software at home, and much at work. Linux is rapidly penetrating corporate infrastructure - it's been the fastest growing operating system for years. What's broken about it?

    Ultimately, I think this paper encourages one to think about the differences between OpenSource and traditional motivational schemes/business models. It is a very interesting read and a lot of thought obviously went into it. I personally believe that society as a whole has more to gain by embracing the benefits of sharing, than to see OpenSource become as systemitized and hierarchical as much of the rest of our society.

    • I personally believe that society as a whole has more to gain by embracing the benefits of sharing, than to see OpenSource become as systemitized and hierarchical as much of the rest of our society.

      You make some good points but I think that your worries are unfounded. There really is no way that OSS could become as "systematized and hierarchical", for the simple reason that the source is available and anyone who chooses to work outside the system is completely free to do so.

      Sure, it's possible that a

      • Certainly a market that does not permit this sort of negotiation is sub-optimal, but there's no reason to think that the market described in the article would prevent it.

        I just read the article more thouroughly (just skimmed it the first time), and I retract this statement.

        A market like this that wants to work needs to incorporate a mechanism whereby users and developers can communicate to to negotiate their way to a final set of requirements. I think the author believes the Project Consultant can do

    • Very true. But I believe this paper underrates the strength of (as Eric Raymond calls it) the gift culture. Essentially, OpenSource developers compete to give the biggest gift to the community. The bigger the gift, the more their standing within the community rises. This has worked pretty well the past 13 years or so.

      A gift culture is not orthogonal with a money-based economy. There is an interesting work by Bernard Lietaer (The Future of Money [transaction.net]) that deals with the effect of complementary community-base

  • Liability (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kwhite ( 152551 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:02AM (#7463858)
    Here is a question I have had about open source code since taking a computer ethics course and also wondering whether we as computer professionals should be certified.

    If company A is using an open source product and said product causes a customer of company A to lose millions of dollars whos is liable? Some may say company A is liable which may or may not be true, but lets remove company A now. Many businesses want someone to be "responsible" for the software they use. If that software is written inhouse or by a third party then the liability is obvious. If open source is used would you go to source forge (as an example) and get the user ids working on the project and sue them for liability? You see businesses can't just think about what is the best piece of written code, but also perhaps which piece of code will cover its backside the best. Is that the best situation? I do not know, but it is a situation that exists, why do you think major corporations and even small business owners have lawyers and liability insurance?

    • Many businesses want someone to be "resonsible" for the software they use.

      They may want that, but do they get it? Try reading any EULA from Microsoft (or any other large software house). They disclaim everything under the sun. Whether those disclaimers will hold up in court is another matter; but then so is whether disclaimers in Open Source software would similarly hold up.

      And what if the company you're dealing with goes under or (more likely in Microsoft's case) discontinues support for the product

    • Re:Liability (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1 software liability is usually not worth the paper the contract is written on

      2 the main reason why developers moved away from the public domain to OSS licenses is that you can only use the software if you accept you cannot sue the developer

      3 buyer beware - with open source, you have the right to view (the source) before buying (using)

      4 liability is expensive. if you want to be able to sue, buy your OSS software from someone who's willing to offer you liability. it's like that this is an insurable risk (
    • You don't have liabilities in this industry, you can only burn reputation (karma) points. If you burn too much of it, people will look somewhere else.

      If MS software where to suddenly explode, you wouldn't be able to hold Mr. Gates accoutable. Now, I think that chaging for software should include some kind of warranty at least at the process level, etc. Companies and individuals alike should be liable if they sell a product for money, they should offer a warranty with respect to that offering.

      The warranty

  • Are we all lemmings? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This might come off as a trol, so I will post anonymously... For a long time I have the feeling that all of us, developers/coders, are lemmings. To those who does not know, a lemming is a little mole-like creature that once in a while commits a mass cuicide. Why don't we see any other professional worker , let it be a builder, a doctor, a writer or whats not give his work for free ? Why is that only coders are being asked to code and let their creations go ? for free ?! We are commiting mass cuicide. Tr

    • Re:Are we all lemmings? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nickos ( 91443 )
      "...a lemming is a little mole-like creature that once in a while commits a mass cuicide."

      This [guardian.co.uk] article points out that lemmings "do not, however, commit mass suicide by leaping off cliffs, a myth compounded 45 years ago by Walt Disney's White Wilderness film - which showed lemmings apparently going to their doom."
    • Who will deploy a large Samba instalation? Who will adapt it if somethings needed? Who will tune the kernel for a new cluster that needs some specialties. Who will program that bussines logic that company A needs to be done asap?

      Free software are the tools so that companies and users can put those technologies to good use. It's not an end in itself, as the need for programmers is vast and diverse.

      What you need is free tools at some levels, so that not one company can monopolice a large chunck of it. Your
    • Why don't we see any other professional worker , let it be a builder, a doctor, a writer or whats not give his work for free ?

      All, except the writer, are producing physical (tangible) products or services. They're selling a truely limited resource - physical items or time. It's natural to make an exchange for any limited resource. Words and computer code, however, are unlimited resources. The only limits are artificial. Many writers do give away their work for free, or almost free. It's nearly impos

  • Public Software Fund (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:32AM (#7464118) Homepage
    Sounds like he's proposing what I've already done, pubsoft.org [pubsoft.org]. We take tenders for software, whether for entire new pieces of software, or improvements to existing software, and seek to put together developers and users. Multiple funding models are supported: matching grants, whole grants, or the Street Performer's Protocol. We've funded the up2us program (which never made it out because of the difficulty of tracking up2date development), and are currently funding FreeS/WAN, and GNU Radio.
    -russ
  • I was trying to say it's Munoz, but as you see, slashdot removes the & ntilde ; and places a "n" instead :(

  • Intellectual Property!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by alexjc ( 684852 )
    This initiative is doomed to fail if they do not have very strong policies on IP. The GPL provides no guarantees on IP; for example, I could implement a patented algorithm and release it and users could get sued.

    The article does not even mention the words "intellectual property." Something to consider!

  • - I also expect that the market will take off only as Free Software/Open Source (Linux in particular) moves to the mass market of the desktop, thus generating the necessary economies of scale, visibility and consumer-mass. In my idea, the target end-users of the market are not IT companies, but mainly individuals with no IT knowled (nor desire to acquire it) and Small and Medium Enterprises with small or no IT departments. "

    Okay, first off I am a technology consultant that focuses on helping SMB's (I g

  • I think the idea in itself is a wonderful one, and it's something that I thought about years ago as a solution to the (then) problem of finding good developers and reducing costs. But I see a problem and that is from commercial developers who now make expensive software that is well liked by by end users. Think of Adobe's or Macromedia's products or even products such as games.

    Let us assume that company X wants to make a product, let's call it PhotoX, which it would like to sell in competition to Photoshop
  • I can't believe that the First Monday peer review process accepted that article without pointing out another piece they published a couple of years ago, entitled The Wall Street Performer Protocol: Using Software Completion Bonds to Fund Open Source Software Development [firstmonday.dk].

    There are also some additional references to related market-forms here [www.ms.lt]. Google Answers [slashdot.org] also works on a somewhat related principle.

Slashdot Top Deals

The wages of sin are unreported.

Close