Why software isn't free

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

You miss the whole point of the open source movement you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not free as in “free beer.” People support open source, because they have open hearts and want to make a difference to others, some believe when John Lennon said "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace" for some this is more powerful and rewarding than any money can buy.

I don't think so and it's possibly even naive to think it. There aren't too many hobby gardeners out there who will come and mow my lawn for free. No one is ever going to devote their life to an open source project without adequate compensation somewhere down the line. O/S is considered by most code cutters I know (and that's a lot) as being something cool to be involved with, but not much more.

Red Hat for example, as an open source enterprise, used to heavily push the concept of "free as in beer" (i.e. it didn't cost anything to purchase by a user) AND "free as in speech" (source) to establish itself as a player in the server operating system market. Once free to download and contribute to - not any more. Now that it's done this it's like any other business - it's neither beer nor speech that they're interested in. "Jeez.... you mean we can make money outta this?'

As Barry quite rightly says - there's a major difference between those writing open source code to become recognised, make a difference, have fun, be generous with their time or beautifully philanthropic - to those who write it for commercial application. The problem with a LOT of open source code is that it does not pass muster when it comes to commercial rigidity. It merely floats out there until someone is interested enough to pick it up and run with it and supply better code back to the pool, at the end of the day meaning that lots of it is almost constantly useless for mission critical application.

[RickS (Rick)]

A lot of FOSS development is actually done by employees of commercial operations during their work hours, with the blessing of their employer. I have been involved in a couple of companies developing network appliances based on embedded Linux. We have gained huge leverage from using FOSS software and in return we have made major contributions back to the Linux kernel and other projects. Several of my colleagues spend a significant proportion of their working hours as maintainer of FOSS projects. The company is enlightened enough to recognize that this is a benefit to them.

The quality of FOSS projects does vary widely, but some of it (usually popular and widely used applications) is very good and as well supported as any proprietary product. Some proprietary software is truly awful as well

Cheers,
Rick.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by RickS

A lot of FOSS development is actually done by employees of commercial operations during their work hours, with the blessing of their employer. I have been involved in a couple of companies developing network appliances based on embedded Linux. We have gained huge leverage from using FOSS software and in return we have made major contributions back to the Linux kernel and other projects. Several of my colleagues spend a significant proportion of their working hours as maintainer of FOSS projects. The company is enlightened enough to recognize that this is a benefit to them.

The quality of FOSS projects does vary widely, but some of it (usually popular and widely used applications) is very good and as well supported as any proprietary product. Some proprietary software is truly awful as well

Cheers,
Rick.

I agree with Rick. In my work for a gigantic engineering, electrical, weapons, electronics mainenance facility I always encouraged my staff to do their FO's that were associated with their trades, particularly for members of other trades in the organisation. There was plenty of time as long as they did their assigned tasks first and the access to similar facilities in other trades developed real camarade in an organisation that was very demarkised and unionised

This is a real asset to employers as it saves on training time and often develops skills that can used in assigned tasks. It also keeps them from getting bored with routine tasks. It also keeps them open about what they are doing and pass information on to fellow staff.

Barry

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

I agree with Rick. In my work for a gigantic engineering, electrical, weapons, electronics mainenance facility I always encouraged my staff to do their FO's that were associated with their trades, particularly for members of other trades in the organisation. There was plenty of time as long as they did their assigned tasks first and the access to similar facilities in other trades developed real camarade in an organisation that was very demarkised and unionised

This is a real asset to employers as it saves on training time and often develops skills that can used in assigned tasks. It also keeps them from getting bored with routine tasks. It also keeps them open about what they are doing and pass information on to fellow staff.

Barry

Some good points that I didn't mention, Barry! FOSS projects offer excellent skill and career development opportunities for the software engineers. Conversely, a supportive attitude from the company helps to recruit the very best people.

Cheers,
Rick.

[irwjager (Ivo)]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

The problem with a LOT of open source code is that it does not pass muster when it comes to commercial rigidity. It merely floats out there until someone is interested enough to pick it up and run with it and supply better code back to the pool, at the end of the day meaning that lots of it is almost constantly useless for mission critical application.

Sorry Chris, but that's a patently false statement. Most websites are hosted on Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP stacks and various stock exchanges around the world run on Linux. Linux is ubiquitous in datacenters and most of the phones that are sold today run Linux and OpenSource software.

The different licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc.) almost guarantee that the quality of software is high.

Most developers don't start from scratch, but base their software on a set of pre-existing frameworks and libraries. The GPL and LGPL guarantee that the part of your program that constitutes these libraries can always be updated, either because your source is (must be) available and can be recompiled, or because those frameworks are separate objects that plug into your program - that is a choice you have as developer.

This means that the GPL/LGPL guarantees that users can avail from any updates and bugfixes to parts of the software that you didn't write originally. So even if you will never update your code ever again, your actual program may still avail of bugfixes and performance increases years later because of fixes to the libraries and frameworks.

Then there is the trickle down effect. If you find (and fix) a bug in a framework or library, this fix is (should be) immediately available to everyone who uses that same library or framework. You just not only improved your own app, but also the app of thousands of others.

This 'mandatory' trickle down effect ensures you start off with quality tools, frameworks and libraries from the get-go. Ofcourse you're still free to build a shoddy app on top of that. Plenty of those around, whether they're open source or not...

I should add that, personally, I like writing things from scratch and am not a big fan of using other people's libraries and frameworks. This is mainly borne out of the desire to keep things compact and as platform independent as possible, which means that I can not rely on platform dependent libraries and frameworks. My stuff (StarTools) is therefore closed source because there's no need or benefit to comply with any license.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by irwjager

Sorry Chris, but that's a patently false statement. Most websites are hosted on Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP stacks and various stock exchanges around the world run on Linux. Linux is ubiquitous in datacenters and most of the phones that are sold today run Linux and OpenSource software.

Sorry Ivo, I'm not referring to mainstream LAMP fare. I thought that'd be obvious. You seem to be under the false assumption that I have it in somehow for open source - and you'd be a long way from the truth. I run my entire business on multiple Centos5 installations running both Apache and Glassfish, MySQL and rather a lot of PHP & JSP application code. I'm talking about the great bulk of smaller projects you find on Sourceforge that I come across that are unstable, unfinished and perpetually undergoing undisciplined change. On the flip side there are a also a great many fabulous projects which commercial operations could learn from. I've been tooling around with Linux and open source since its inception - and prior to that Minix - the original open source Unix-like O/S. I'm not new to this.

I'm not sure why this thread has degenerated into an open source vs. commercial software war. Open source was never mentioned in the opening post. I agree with nearly all of what has been said in its defence - but I'm not sure why it was necessary in the first place. Maybe if we could steer back to the original topic please?

[RickS (Rick)]

I didn't think the thread had quite degenerated into a war. I think you're just getting some robust discussion from the people that think that "13 Reasons Why Some Software Is Not Free" or "13 Reasons Why Software Is Not Free to Produce" might be more accurate than the original "13 Reasons Why Software Is Not Free"

Cheers,
Rick.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Good point Rick. Maybe the title should have been "13 reasons why you shouldn't expect all software to be free". Howzat?

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

Good point Rick. Maybe the title should have been "13 reasons why you shouldn't expect all software to be free". Howzat?

Excellent, Chris!

[irwjager (Ivo)]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

Sorry Ivo, I'm not referring to mainstream LAMP fare. I thought that'd be obvious. You seem to be under the false assumption that I have it in somehow for open source - and you'd be a long way from the truth. I run my entire business on multiple Centos5 installations running both Apache and Glassfish, MySQL and rather a lot of PHP & JSP application code. I'm talking about the great bulk of smaller projects you find on Sourceforge that I come across that are unstable, unfinished and perpetually undergoing undisciplined change. On the flip side there are a also a great many fabulous projects which commercial operations could learn from. I've been tooling around with Linux and open source since its inception - and prior to that Minix - the original open source Unix-like O/S. I'm not new to this.

Sorry Chris - didn't mean to offend in any way!

I was merely trying to show how (free) OSS has one up on closed source by explaining how enforcing some of the OSS licenses actually facilitate better working code, making some (free) OSS a more trustworthy proposition for mission critical applications than closed source.

Of course SourceForge is full of funky little projects that are in constant flux, some of questionable quality. But that's in contrast to... nothing at all (closed source). My point is you can't really say that open source is less suitable for mission critical applications, solely based on the availability of code, since you don't have anything to compare it with. I'm sure there's plenty of (closed source) code sitting in people's hard drives that's equally as questionable.

Originally Posted by Omaroo

I'm not sure why this thread has degenerated into an open source vs. commercial software war. Open source was never mentioned in the opening post. I agree with nearly all of what has been said in its defence - but I'm not sure why it was necessary in the first place. Maybe if we could steer back to the original topic please?

Debate is good, war is bad If I offended, please accept my apologies.

In all fairness, the topic is "Why software isn't free". I do believe that OSS (as advocated by the Free Software Foundation) touches on a good few discussion points as to what 'free' means in the context of software and software development.

[joe_smith]

I'm not sure why this thread has degenerated into an open source vs. commercial software war

Because its what us humans do best lol

but seriously open source software is free, you are free to use it and free to modify it for your own needs. With commercial software you are locked into a licence agreement that states you may not modify the code, most of the time with commercial software you buy a licence to use the program, not the program itself. It you want to change something in the program to suit your business needs you cant, Open source is free in that way.

The problem with a LOT of open source code is that it does not pass muster when it comes to commercial rigidity

hmmm some might, but i would say a lot of commercial programs that people pay for are the same, just check the computer section for problems with paid apps. I only use open source on my computer and I can do anything that I can do with a commercial OS

Red Hat for example, as an open source enterprise, used to heavily push the concept of "free as in beer" (i.e. it didn't cost anything to purchase by a user) AND "free as in speech" (source) to establish itself as a player in the server operating system market. Once free to download and contribute to - not any more. Now that it's done this it's like any other business - it's neither beer nor speech that they're interested in. "Jeez.... you mean we can make money outta this?

I agree they used open source code to make money and the free software foundation says you are entitled to do this. They have a closed version of their OS but they also have and support, the growth of open source with their Fedora project OS. thus giving back which is also one of the rules.

Maybe the title should have been "13 reasons why you shouldn't expect all software to be free".

Maybe in the commercial software world you might need 13 reasons after all they only write software to make money. But in the open source world money is not the goal “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. You dont put a price on it because if you do you take away the whole philosophy of open source and try to drag it back into the commercial domain where money as usual is the goal.

[RickS (Rick)]

Hey Joe (hmm... that's a catchy line!)

IMHO there is a place for FOSS and there is a place for commercial software. Both have value and neither is the solution for every problem.

FOSS excels at infrastructural applications and for applications that are interesting enough to attract and keep the attention of a significant developer community.

Commercial applications are likely to remain the only choice for more specialized applications and unusual requirements.

Software developers need to eat too, so there's always going to be a need to make money from software somehow...

Cheers,
Rick.

[irwjager (Ivo)]

Originally Posted by RickS

Hey Joe (hmm... that's a catchy line!)

IMHO there is a place for FOSS and there is a place for commercial software. Both have value and neither is the solution for every problem.

FOSS excels at infrastructural applications and for applications that are interesting enough to attract and keep the attention of a significant developer community.

Commercial applications are likely to remain the only choice for more specialized applications and unusual requirements.

Software developers need to eat too, so there's always going to be a need to make money from software somehow...

Cheers,
Rick.

That's a nice summary of my thoughts exactly Rick!

[norm]

I don't have problem for paying for s/w, but for the life of me, why don't they make it cheaper?

Eg, MS 2010 goes for say $350-$500, wouldn't they be better off charging say $25-$50 instead. I'd be more incline to think if that was the case, more mums and dads, students could afford it and therefore more inclined to pick up a legit version.

I understand fully the years of development and support that goes into these products etc, but when they charge these prices, its no wonder piracy exists.

Its not like Microsoft couldn't afford to drop the prices even for their O/Ses.

Norm

[Terry B]

I expect to pay for software but object to being ripped off.
My standard software used at work (a medical script writing program) has beeen getting more expensive for years. It has pretty much got a monopoly with over 70% usage in my industry. It was cheap initially which is how it got its high usage. My fees for the last 12 months was about $6000 to use a programme that has barely changed in many years. We haven't used support for the programme for years so don't really get any benefit from the high cost apart from the essential updates.
The company that owns the software now isn't the same one as originally produced the programme. It is now a cash cow for an investor.