Comments on: Open source: It's about capitalism, not freebies

The term "free software" sounds anticapitalist, but it's about money as much as freedom. Forbes is running an article that profiles several prominent open-source capitalists.

[RighteousSoutherner]

You're deluding yourself, Matt. Most open source software is ruled by a socialist doctrine. It's called the GPL!!

[Matt Asay]

Actually, I think the GPL is the ultimate capitalist license. See http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9896565-16.html.

[RighteousSoutherner]

Matt, your ideas about open source software is pure revisionist history. I need only examine the man behind the movement to undestand him (Stallman) and his cronies intent. The man's an avowed socialist. That is, to circumnavigate U.S. based intellectual property laws with the malagined or so-called GPL. As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on pig, but it's still a pig. I find your reasoning about open source incredulous to say the least. Uttterly laughable.

[Matt Asay]

I think you're confusing Stallman (cause) with the aftershocks (effect). Stallman almost certainly intended what you describe, but who cares? The cat is out of the bag, and it's capitalism. I can use his tool in very different ways than those he intended.

[pentest]

Socialist?

There is nothing closer to a true free market than open source. Stallman himself has never said that the GPL and making money are divergent.

[RighteousSoutherner]

@Pentest

Purely delusional drivel.

[theopensourcerer]

@RighteousSoutherner.

You are the one who is deluded. I have listened to Stallman speak quite recently and he was very clear that that the GPL and Free Software are in no way contradictory with making money. In fact he said quite the opposite.

Get you facts right.

[RighteousSoutherner]

@theopensourcer

Listening to Richard Stallman talking about making money or capitalism would be like asking a fox if it was okay for it to guard a hen house, lol. Let me refresh your memory:

The GPL (or GNU Public License) was created in 1989 by Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software
Foundation. The GPL is what is now known as a ?copyleft? license, a term coined based on its controversial
reciprocity clause. Essentially this clause stipulates that you are allowed to use the software on
the condition that any derivative works that you create from it and distribute must be licensed to all
under the same license. This is intended to ensure that the software and any enhancements to it remain
in the public domain for everyone to share. Although this is a great humanitarian goal, it seriously
restricts the use of the software in a commercial environment.
The BSD (or Berkeley Software Distribution) was created by the University of California and was designed
to permit the free use, modification, and distribution of software without any return obligation on the part
of the community. The BSD is essentially a ?copyright? license, meaning that you are free to use the software
on the condition that you retain the copyright notice in all copies or derivative works. The BSD is also
known as an ?academic? license because it provides the highest degree of intellectual property sharing. (Walker, 2006).

I'll take the BSD license any day over GPL, if I decided to use any sort of open source software, thank you very much.

[odubtaig]

Given the increasing amount of money being made from F/OSS (and the amount Stallman made consulting) it's a little hard to believe that the GPL is somehow incompatible with capitalism.

Now, if I release code under the GPL you can either contribute back (which saves all the contributors money in the long run) or you can negotiate with me to license it otherwise, in which case I'll probably expect you to pay me.

If I release code under the BSD license you can use it as you like and I get nothing.

Which license is more compatible with capitalism again? I'll look to the one that doesn't have other people making money off my work without paying me a penny. If the GPL is Soviet then the BSD license is positively Feudal.

As usual, the person calling Linux 'socialist' is just narked he can't get rich doing nothing while everyone else does all the hard work.

PS. That _circumvent_, not circumnavigate. Way to reinforce a stereotype.

[odubtaig]

PPS

The original intent of the GPL was this:

No-one who's paying for software should be held hostage by the vendor.

It's commoditisation in the same way you can now get your car from any of 30+ manufacturers and your computer from any of 300+ vendors. For some reason Stallman felt that the customer was right to resent being forced into upgrades or extortionate maintenance fees just to keep accessing their own data.

Can't help but agree with that.

[ajhoughton]

The Free Software movement in particular is a collectivist movement, and collectivism is pretty much diametrically opposed to capitalism. An awful lot of Open Source activists have a collectivist mindset?

Of course, it is a little more complicated in that occasionally Open Source licenses are used for reasons that are entirely non-political in nature. When that happens things tend to be released under the BSD or MIT licenses or some variation, or under a proprietary license (which may even have terms prohibiting commercial use), rather than explicitly collectivist licenses like GPL or LGPL.

[pentest]

You might have a point if OSS wasn't a multi-billion dollar market. Sharing knowledge is the second oldest pursuit in human history. In fact proprietary software is 100% prior art. Ever seen proprietary code? It is just code copied and pasted out of textbooks and are nothing more then a ton of third party API calls, just like OSS. There is nothing to protect in that.

What political reasons do people use OSS licenses?

[ajhoughton]

(It'd be good if the comments here accepted Unicode characters; that "?" above was supposed to be an ellipsis - "..." but in a single character)

[hymanroth]

There's a paradox at the heart of open source. If the code were truly easy to use and self-configuring (one of computing's most enduring Holy Grails) then you wouldn't need to pay someone else to either show you how use it properly or tailor it.

In other words, a 'perfect' piece of code would, by definition, generate no revenue from its open source halo.

I'm a big a fan of open source in general, but not so much of the sustainability of its business model (as you know)

[Matt Asay]

Agreed that it looks like open source doesn't = cash on its face, but the right blend of license with subscription can be hugely profitable, IMO. Where are the examples? Well, Red Hat is one, but IBM is probably a much better example. But really, we're just on the cusp of unleashing many good examples.

[sodablue]

The examples you give, nothing they sell is licensed under the GPL. Why is that?

[Matt Asay]

That's not true...IBM sells hardware that runs GPL software. Red Hat sells subscriptions (to largely GPL software). TiVo is really just a bundle of GPL software with a thin overlay of intelligence. Etc.

[Matt Asay]

That's not true...IBM sells hardware that runs GPL software. Red Hat sells subscriptions (to largely GPL software). TiVo is really just a bundle of GPL software with a thin overlay of intelligence. Etc.

But it's also true that you can use GPL as the loss-leader and then complement it with other (sometimes proprietary) software.

[eagledrc]

Open-source is like communism because people benefit from the work of others without working themselves. It is like capitalism because freedom is supreme and everyone has choice.

[pentest]

Show me a proprietary program that does not use the work of others.

Good luck

[ewriter21]

This is a fairly shallow look at a deep issue. FOSS as envisioned and evangleized by Stallman et al is certainly not about capitalist intent and a pretty good argument to the contrary can be made. Matt, most of your supporting proofs in your blog suggest that freely available evals would provide most of the same lift as an open source business model and with less of the risk. Unless a company has a dominant position, you've not accounted for the ability for pretty much anyone else that sees the same market opportunity and has more ability to execute to lift the "product" and go to market. Red Hat / CentOS, Oracle Unbreakable Linux is a great example. Only Red Hat's market and mind share lead kept these from destroying them. Darwinism or capitalism or both is clearly at work here but your arguments support the distribution side of free software being valuable far more than the open side.

Apache's dominance didn't come from being open source fundamentally. It did come from being widely and freely available and being open to certain parties that had an interest in putting it on ever more platforms. And, as others have pointed out, it remains unburdened by GPL but choice of license really wasn't the point of your blog so I'll not take further issue with GPL here.

I agree with your "means to an end" and "distribution mechanism" points strongly. I just don't see the rest of the blog entry proving much more than these two points which, in turn, makes me question free software or FOSS as the hammer needed to turn these bolts.

[pentest]

It is funny how people talk about Stallman, but yet have obviously never read his writing at FSF. If you had, you wouldn't be writing such nonsense.

Open source goes well beyond the GPL.

[shootthecops]

which makes microsoft what exactly? totalitarian dictators. they force their products and their standards. you need their products to access certain government and educational websites.

[m0r1arty]

I wouldn't say Open Source is capitalistic in the traditional sense, but then I wouldn't have said that Western philosophies towards banks self imposed debts are communistic from a traditional viewpoint either.

I think Open Source keeps proprietary software on it's toes and the research and innovations that come from big software houses force Open Source to try harder - all in all it's the best way to have proper development for all our systems.

We'd be in a stalemate in no time if we left it only in the hands of either.

[ebarroca]

Hi,

I have recently discussed the same topic, and mostly agree with you. ;-)
Except I don't think the GPL is the only true license. I really think LGPL, EPL and consorts can offer more in this area (free market and capitalism applied to the software industry), but I'm open to the discussion. :-)
You can check it out here: <http://blogs.nuxeo.com/ebarroca/2009/01/free-market-open-source-and-risk-mitigation.html>.

See you,

EB.

[idfubar]

Open-source & capitalism - is that like The Grateful Dead and Bill Graham?

[bummerhan]

comments on http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10159370-16.html#addcomm

definitely contradictory
if the author truly believes OSS is the means to an ends (and I agree)
why the entire company should not brand itself around "Open Source" like a cheap buzzword

open source in face value means source available, open for modification
trying to extrapolate it to capitalism or communism - is really a crime in itself

the reality (common to proprietary or open source) is
- turning open source into cash : in the end, what good is a pedigree dog if it's dead, all good software needs continual effort and energies
- you get what you pay for: to pay $500 for a software that works makes more sense than $5 on a crappy proprietary program that is badly maintained and get handcuffed to the sinking ship
- licensing is legalese horror - viral licenses eventually force hardworking companies to find workarounds (like Qt), engage in market control (like Android) or try sidestepping (see AGPL vs Google) or use OSS to fulfill hidden agendas (Flex)

if you don't understand the above
let me simply put what OSS means to me : "longevity" and "quality". period.
not a positive check on proprietary software
definitely not a freebie

[BrnRvrd]

Do not confuse Free Markets and Capitalism. Socialism's basic principles are not incompatible with Free markets of goods and services. They are indeed overlapping with the GPL.

Inform yourself (as in do your reading, as a professional journalist should do) before coming up with half baked punchlines.