Tripping over dollars to save pennies: Open-source cheapskating

You just can't please everyone. I read this post from an irate Joomla! user who is incensed that he has to pay - drum roll, please! - $25 to $300 for a Joomla! theme. Let's be clear: This theme is not required to use the Joomla! web content management system. It's not even made by Joomla, so far as I can tell.

Instead, he's chafing at having to pay a third-party developer for the software:

...I ran into a very disappointing surprise regarding Joomla. As I searched for themes, (templates) all the ones I came across that looked halfway decent were "Paid" themes that you had to buy ranging from $25 to $300 dollars depending on the site and the subscription. A lot of the modules I was looking at also carried a hefty price tag to use with this "Open Source" software.

In conflating "open" with "free cost," this Joomla! user has completely missed the point of open source. He's also missed the point that $25 is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars he'd otherwise be paying Vignette, Fatwire, Interwoven, etc.

I'm not suggesting that this person is representative of the Joomla! community. I'm just annoyed that we still have people who feel that open source was divinely ordained to be free of cost. It's not. Get over it.

[royrubin]

Matt - I would have to argue that this person certainly represents a big part of Joomla's (and other open source projects, including ours) community. Complaints are rampant with users who expect free support, development, design and everything else you can imagine. For a commercial open source company this is a very concerning issue but luckily none of us are counting our chickens with these types of users.

Roy / Magento

[royrusso]

Retail lesson #1: Your cheapest customers are also the biggest pain in the ***.

[vscribe]

Here, Here - I'll bet this guy does not turn his paycheck back on Friday. He expects to get paid. Why shouldn't Dev's!

[CoffeeGroupUSA]

You hit it on the head, Matt. Glad you picked up on this discussion! -John Coonen JoomlaChicago

[odubtaig]

This has always been an issue with F/OSS, there are always people who expect to be pandered to with no expectation of ever having to contribute anything back, hence the ever applicable motto "patches welcome".



"I want this, this and this esoteric function that no-one else wants, I want it here and I want it now."



"That's great, we have eight jillion other things to be getting on with that are five thousand times more important to the project right now but patches are always welcome."



Then, of course, it's the same people who claim the Open Source community is elitist/unhelpful/not interested in the user.



It's true that if you want your software to succeed you have to listen to people with genuine gripes or even just suggestions (if only to put it in the never-ending list of potential improvements which any and every software package shall forever have) but then there's people like this who think the world owes them everything. These people will never pay you, will never contribute and will never be happy even if you make the perfect software so it's best to take the time honoured tactic of ignoring them completely and utterly.

[CoffeeGroupUSA]

This article raises MANY questions - valuation of services, ethics, perception of what Open Source really is - it's fantastic fodder!

: : : Brings up an interesting point : : :

Think OS app's like OpenOffice are *really* "free?" Heck no! Sun pays developers to provide OO for "free," just to eat away at Microsoft's margins. And while the consumer can download OO for "free," who actually PAYS for those dev's who are not volunteering? Sun's clientele pays, as the price of Sun products and services must go up to cover the cost of development.

Stuff Rolls Down Hill. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

: : : Another point in the thread of interest : : :

One of the posts in there says that developers profit off the backs of "volunteers." Give me a break! Open Source has its share of volunteers, but by and large, those (like me) who "donate" to the community are actually INVESTING in it, hoping that the time, talent and treasure we invest will ultimately PAY OFF with new business in other forms.

We "volunteer" for Joomla or WordPress or FireFox, or another OS project, but we most certainly benefit from any number of things, getting a maximum ROI in fact, on:

- We get smarter. That means we're building our value in the marketplace - as a developer, producer, educator, technical consultant, whatever.
- Our good rep earns us sales of our own subscription-based software.
- Street cred earns us a higher-paying salary or better career, makes valuable connections!
- Travel perks, speaking fees and sometimes unimaginable "free publicity," especially for higher-level team members on larger projects.
- EXTREMELY VALUABLE insider information on market trends, customer tendencies, pricing, "AdSense" opportunities, etc (this is one area of concern, especially when so-called "non-profit" boards are holding the keys to the OS trademark, copyrights and intellectual property kingdom - ah, we'll save that for another thread).

Volunteer?
In some cases, it surely is selfless.
In most cases, it's a wise investment in one's own future (career, business, etc).
Then, in some cases, it smells a lot more like "volunteering" to be on the board of oh, I dunno ... say, Haliburton?

[odubtaig]

I wouldn't say Sun are developing OO.org to eat at MS's margins specifically, it's to create a viable office software suite which can run on something other than Windows or OS X. It's the same sweetener than Apple use to break down barriers to switching to OS X when they put iTunes and Safari on Windows



In short: if Sun can get people using OO.org which, unlike MS Office, runs on Linux and Solaris then they can more easily sell Linux and Solaris based systems to them with compatibility less of an issue. It's going back to the old days (and when I say old I mean before I was born) where the software was nothing more than a device to sell the hardware and support contracts.

[AmyStephen]

John -

That was a tough read. You covered so much material there, it might have seemed more coherent if there had been a bit of white space.

You are right, though, volunteering with an open source project can make you smarter, it can build your value in the market place, and it improves your reputation. It is, indeed, a wise investment.

Plus, it's just the right thing to do -- give something back and help improve the project you depend upon.

Matt Asay - I love your column. You get it. Thanks!

[vdrover]

I changed my free (as in $$) open source project into a commercial open source project with interesting effect. Some people really complained about the rate change from $0 to $5. Others didn't mind and felt reassured that the project would have less chance of being abandoned if there was some financial support.

In the end, it strengthened the community and the project. However, I still spend a lot of time explaining to people what they are paying for. For example, $5 does not but you much support.

You can read the entire saga on my site:

http://dev.anything-digital.com/Forum/1.5.x-General-Discussion/1363-JCal-Download-cost-$$-/

[jimmyed2000]

Matt, I hear you on the frustration. I suspect, however, that this along with the free-as-in-speech / free-as-in-beer distinction will need to be explained to the rest of this generation and every generation after this.

P.S. Hi Roy Russo, hows it going?

[akiba_freak]

Yeah, it's a problem with noobs that don't understand the philosophy behind open source, but its no use to gripe about them. Individual users will always be finicky about their money. Companies are the ones that actually pay the bills and (usually?) understand the value of excellent software like Joomla vs commercial offerings.

[Danayel]

Great post Matt.

I am a Commercial Open Source Developer like Vic above. We often have issues with people literally demanding that we give them our software free of charge because we use an Open Source license on our code.

They forget that developers need to eat too.

[Serenity3000]

I think its a very simple matter of a little confusion on the parts of the "free open source" supporters, mixed with a lack of consideration for the hard working programmers. If you think these programs should be free, ask yourself this: Do you do your job for free?...I don't. I mean we can hash out the many facets and intricacies of this issue until we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day its simple.

You don't see me marching down to the jewelry store like "Hey why aren't these diamonds free?? I'm SOOOO disappointed!"...and then blogging about how nobody should wear diamonds.

[kaocrat]

Nobody should wear diamonds.