The little red hen business model
Summary: One reason closed-source developers may continue to feel smug is they have a working business model. Charging for code is an easy business model.
One reason closed-source developers may continue to feel smug is they have a working business model.
Charging for code is an easy business model. You know how hard to work on a project based on how many people pay you for it, and how much they pay.
I know open source code doesn't always mean free code. The heart of the idea isn't in the price but in the fact that the buyer can look at it, and may then be under an obligation to share improvements.
But most open source projects don't charge for code. Thus many open source projects don't know the market demand for their work, and are forced to beg.
Such projects can be in big trouble if a key sponsor drops out. This happened to the Open Graphics Project recently. The project leaders are continuing to go ahead on their own dime, but they're looking for $1 million, from either investors or a partner.
This is just one troubled project. There are others. David Berlind wrote recently how JasperSoft took over its open source reporting tool, JasperReports and began charging for it, calling the result "commercial open source."
The link between the funding and the work is one big fault line for the open source world. Open source advocates keep talking about "support," but that only kicks in once someone has taken what they made. Paid source developers can usually get by on a little capital, a few loans, and the pre-orders. As projects become more complex, requiring more time and money to accomplish, the advantages of this paid source model will increase.
How can open source advocates turn this around? They might use the Little Red Hen business model.
Companies that really want the software may pre-pay for support. Future support charges might be discounted to those who provide help. This can come in many forms, staff time, physical resources, even testing.
Those who grow the wheat and bake the bread should get to eat it first. I suspect many open source projects already work in this way, and it makes a lot of sense. What do you think? Let me know in TalkBack.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
what's free??
I hope that linux can find a way to stay open source, and make a profit.
What do you mean by "pay"?
If, on the other hand, you actually DO pay for the software (and that means all the development costs) then, yes, you should be able to modify it, inspect it, wallpaper your house with the printouts, whatever you like. You own it.
FOSS changes that, and in some ways that's a bad thing. The whole concept of ownership disappears, and the Tragedy of the Commons starts to apply. FOSS relies on a committed core of zealots (in the strict sense of that word) to make it work. Too many freeloaders, and it all falls apart.
Tragedy of the Commons
What exactly is the tragedy of the commons?
I'd be very interested in that. I'm not being flip, either. I do indeed want to be educated on this.
I believe having a commons is a very positive good. But I can be convinced otherwise.
Should have quoted that phrase...
http://dieoff.org/page95.htm
What it really means is, if we all own something, then nobody owns it. Hence, freeloaders.
The GPL attempts to get around this by exposing a different kind of ownership model, consisting of forcing contributing users to give back their contributions to the community. This works as long as there are sufficient contributors, and with Linux, Apache and a bunch of other well-known FOSS projects, there is a critical mass that so far has been able to absorb the demands of the freeloaders. How long that can continue is an open question.
Thanks for the Explanation
What's needed, always, is a set of laws that can be enforced within the commons, a group to enforce that set of laws, and a funding mechanism that will pay the people to do the enforcing.
This tragedy befell many, many parks until the funding requirements came to be met.
Point is, the tragedy doesn't have to happen. I think you note that in your paragraph about the GPL. It's the obligation to "give back" that keeps the GPL commons going.
Which leads to a political attack on the other side. When you attack the GPL as "restrictive," aren't you demanding a right to freeload?
That's the trouble with analogies. They lead to more.
Thanks again...
Tragedy of the Commons does not apply
The origins of open source
I don't think it springs from communism. I think it springs from the more egalitarian spirit of 19th century America.
Parks are an example of this commons in action. I really like a quote from Frederick Law Olmsted, the father of many of our greatest parks. It was addressed to future generations. "Look, we built this for you!"
The American Founding Fathers believed strongly in a commons. They described copyrights and patents as "monopolies," granted reluctantly in the Constitution for a limited time and to a limited purpose, mainly to provide an incentive for creating more.
It's not a property right. Intellectual creations should move toward the commons over time.
But that's not the direction in which the law has moved in our time.
Open source, as a concept then, is as old as the Revolution. The American one, not the Russian one.
linux and communists
In all I think that we must reach some sort of middleground where innovation on the part of the computing community is not stifled by the greed of one meglomaniac, or left to the whims of people working without monetary incentive.
The United States economy, and our future is at stake, as China and other foreign countries laugh at our intellectual property laws. The only good defense in this situation is a good offense.
Nonsense.
Most development in the US is NOT done for the shrinkwrap software industry (Microsoft, etc.). Most programming is done to modify and develop software in house. Software houses that have their own products generally make most of their money customising the software for their clients. It is easy to see that the OSS business model (paying for modifications) fits easily with most development done in this country (and indeed, the world).<blockquote>The United States economy, and our future is at stake</blockquote>I agree. Hanging on to outmoded development practices (like hiding the source code and deliberately limiting the developer base) is probably the worst course of action that anyone could take.
projects
Patent
JasperSoft took over its open source reporting tool, JasperReports and beg
JasperReports remains FREE!
As the founder of JasperReports, I feel very strongly that it will remain open source. Teaming up with JasperSoft made a lot of sense. We have a very large user base and that community of JasperReports users was clamoring for more support and additional functionality.
Frankly, I didn't have the time or the bandwidth to do this on my own.
JasperSoft's going to make sure that happens without taking away the essence of what makes this an open source project.
In short, the "commercial" aspect revolves around the additional support they will be offering and around JasperDecisions, their commercial reporting solution. That product will actually run reports designed by JasperReports. But it is a separate product and has never been open source.
JasperReports itself will continue to be offered to users as an open source project -- free of charge!
Regards,
Teodor Danciu
Responses Without Knowledge
The main problem with the story and comments would be obvious to anyone who has participated in an open source project. The missing concept is the mistaken belief that you can only buy things with money. The fact is that many business buy things with services or property (intellectual or real).
Open source development is, in my experience, usually a Strategic Partnership. An individual or company needs a piece of software and does not have all the resources to develop it. So they partner with others to develop that software. Each partner receives benefits greater value than their investment.
The reasons for the initial need may be the high cost of existing solutions, the high costs of vendor lock-in, or that the specific software or a feature is not available.
I reason open source has taken off is the advent of the Internet which allows this type of distributed development to exist. It simply was not possible to do this type of development easily before the Internet and tools like SourceForge existed.
That a few companies opt to charge for services is an obvious development in any market. It is no different in software.
It is funny that the term Open Source was made up so people wearing "Only Capitalism Good" blinders could accept a new (and therefore scary) form of strategic partnership.
One question
Their software may not be as good as mine, but they give it away for free, and it may well be good enough for most people. By giving the product away they steal my market. Unless I lower my prices I will not be able to sell anything. In the end I will have to give away my product as well. The only difference is that I still is the only one who knows the code to my product. This means that I never will get any suggestions from my users on how to improve it giving me somewhat higher development costs.
In essence the free software phenomenom is much like telecom companies giving away free cellphones to get more customers. I really dislike the communists running companies like Wodaphone, even their logo is red.
Pay ahead of time