|
I agree with you 100%. Your assessment of the situation is right on point.
I especially like when you said,
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I don't see any other professional on the planet giving away their time and work for free.
Also, you're bullets for times when you would open source code are spot on.
Thanks so much for joining the discussion. I really enjoyed reading your points and they encouraged me to see that at least someone else sees it as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Any time man. It was a good topic.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
To leave a legacy.
Other than posting articles here, I don't do open source software.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been in the same spot long enough to retire multiple libraries. 10 years seems like a typical life span for any technological component.
Business components last longer.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them.
Any volunteer work robs someone from a paid job.
For software, I am guilty, I like to pay back the community that educated me. There was no school when I was young.
In other fields, yes, there's a growing trend for volunteers. They deserve it. If people are willing and it contributes then no harm done, right?
--edit
And because I could. The name of the company is Exceptional Magic, and one article and a quick download changed it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Linus & Linux?
Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded?
Linus Torvalds did not do okay! He created Linux and Git. IBM bought Red Hat for 34 billion in 2019 but he did not get a single cent though IBM and Red Hat are long time sponsors of Linux Foundation. Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018 and he did not get any money while people got rich from his creations. Do you think this is fair?
Regarding OSS, open source means free as in free speech, not free beer, meaning one can make money from selling OSS. But most people misunderstand the meaning of free to mean free beer. Most companies use OSS because they do not cost anything. On the one hand, we have very expensive Windows license, while on the other, we have free Linux OSes. Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
modified 22-Aug-23 3:09am.
|
|
|
|
|
All of your points are fantastic. I agree 100%.
Shao Voon Wong wrote: Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
Yes, that would make the most sense of all. That way developers who work on the projects could get paid while still making the OS affordable to all.
Thanks for the great post! 
|
|
|
|
|
Shao Voon Wong wrote: Linus Torvalds did not do okay! He created Linux and Git. IBM bought Red Hat for 34 billion in 2019 but he did not get a single cent though IBM and Red Hat are long time sponsors of Linux Foundation. Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018 and he did not get any money while people got rich from his creations. Do you think this is fair?
Do I? Hmmm...more importantly does he?
Well yes he does think it is fair.
Linus Torvalds on Why Open Source Solves the Biggest Problems - The New Stack[^]
"does he have any regrets about choosing the GPLv2 license? — Torvalds answers “Absolutely not… I’m 100% convinced that the license has been a big part of the success of Linux (and Git, for that matter)"
Shao Voon Wong wrote: Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
Because...
You expect it run on your hardware. Even though there are a million different variations in hardware.
And you expect that you can make money by delivering something that runs on one of those million different hardware set ups.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it?
Where 'better' is defined how?
I suspect Larry Wall enjoys being the creator of Perl. And some other tools.
raddevus wrote: People don't donate actual $$.
Oh, you mean money.
If you want money for something then you should start with a company.
Not sure where ActiveState and Larry Wall are now but at least at one time several people that were actively involved with Perl worked for that company.
raddevus wrote: When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it.
You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things.
Except
1. Some people are hired by companies because those companies want the expert in that product working for them. (ActiveState is an example.)
2. Some people are paid significant sums to speak at various functions (public and private) because they are the author of some highly used software.
raddevus wrote: I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them
I am rather certain that developers that contribute to Open Source do it for some of the following reasons.
- They like working on code.
- They like becoming known.
- They think they have a better solution.
- They do not want the commitment of a full time job/company.
- Companies fail. Often with a cost (money) to the original person. The cost for open source is very low and it only fails if the original person gives up on it.
- They have ideological viewpoints that support it.
- Looks good on the resume.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you make a lot of great points in your post.
I definitely feel that this is one of the things that gets me:
jschell wrote: They do not want the commitment of a full time job/company.
That's why I was (probably wrongly) hoping that
1. I could release as Open Source
2. Lots of people could use it and many of them (also sole devs & smaller companies) could use it for free or very cheap ($12 per year)
2. Add licensing that says, "Hey, if this thing takes off and BigCorp starts using it, then you will pay me well for all my hard work."
That's the Real Dream. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: That's why I was (probably wrongly) hoping that
1. I could release as Open Source
2. Lots of people could use it and many of them (also sole devs & smaller companies) could use it for free or very cheap ($12 per year)
2. Add licensing that says, "Hey, if this thing takes off and BigCorp starts using it, then you will pay me well for all my hard work."
github -free level
papertrail - low cost initial level
mixpanel - free level
AWS S3 - low cost initial level. Many (all?) AWS services have something like this.
Textpad - low unlimited single use license.
google maps - limited monthly limit for no charge. (I suspect you need to insure the limit yourself.)
I am certain there are many others.
|
|
|
|
|
Despite another's claim that no one else gives away services for free there are of course a number of problems with that assertion.
Open Source Software is just time. I doubt any developer goes out to buy a new computer just so they can create a open source project. The vast majority by far already have everything they need. So there is no cost. Some might choose to spend extra (a domain name) but that is a choice.
Almost everything else requires spending money.
Consider a car mechanic. They might work for free on the local church van or youth center. But car parts are something they need to actually buy. They need to do this for every fix.
What about Habitat for Humanity?
During Covid there was a loose organization set up of individuals who built desks for kids that had none.
What about trades (plumbing, electrician, etc) workers who donate time and money (equipment/supplies) to help out neighbors and even strangers who are having problems. Having done some work recently I can state that having just the equipment for this sort of thing is a substantial cost for even small projects. And those people probably also have a computer.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree with your examples...except...
Those things don't scale like Software.
A plumber can never fix 100 million pipes himself.
A mechanic can never fix 100 million cars himself.
The point is that if you create a software solution it may be used by 100 million people.
Ah, and the mechanic may create an add-on that he sells that allows consumers to up their gas mileage.
Then, 100 million people could buy it. He may even tell people how it works -- and be protected by patent protection.
However, if I tell you how the software works and then you take the source and build it and use it for 100 million users there is no patent protection (and I'm glad you can't patent software).
So, again, I'm just talking about protecting OSS creators so that if their package or solution does get used by 100s of millions of people by BigCorp and BigCorp didn't have to pay for any dev then somehow the original OSS dev should get her "fair share".
|
|
|
|
|
You can copyright source and you can patent algorithms/processes.
In the US, they allow you to make ridiculous software patents, never use them, and then sue people for infringement.
Patent trolls!
I remember researching an algorithm I wrote to ensure that there were no patent infringements.
We did not patent ourself, but keep it as a trade secret.
|
|
|
|
|
englebart said: In the US, they allow you to make ridiculous software patents, never use them, and then sue people for infringement.
It’s a terrible thing. To me, that part is worse than the worst parts of the open source challenges. Can’t stand the trolls. It’s a crazy system bec it rewards people who can think of ideas but who cannot actually carry them out. They cannot even produce the thing but are somehow entitled to the rewards. So terrible!!
The patent system should take into account if the patent holder has never produced the thing they’ve patented.
Trolls!!!
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Those things don't scale like Software.
Exactly - because of the cost. And because it cannot be copied.
Certainly those that were building desks wanted to do exactly that.
raddevus wrote: So, again, I'm just talking about protecting OSS creators so that if their package or solution does get used by 100s of millions of people by BigCorp and BigCorp didn't have to pay for any dev then somehow the original OSS dev should get her "fair share".
And as I mentioned several times - then start a company. That is how people do that that want to get paid.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would any solo dev release software at all?
If you release it for free, no one will buy it. Obviously. Because it's free.
If you release it for not-free, no one will buy it. Obviously. Because it isn't free.
The only winning move is not to play.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: The only winning move is not to play.
I've already won then!
Inaction rules the day!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Open Source has been a great time and effort saver for a lot of technical architects like us. We benefit by having teams incorporate work that we don't trust our devs to accomplish in the required measure of quality and comprehensiveness.
The recurring issue is always how to ensure that there are no litigatory blowbacks. The problem is that when an OSS component is incorporated there is no easy way to ensure that the transaction completes likes the one for a loaf of bread rather than the one for a hotel room where the cost escalates per person, per day and per usage.
Today the market is so fragmented that individual OSS devs have no pricing power and have no consistentcy of monetization.
If OSS were consolidated into something like an App Store that allowed us to use the components like you would use a packet of Lego blocks and pay legally binding fees enumerated fairly only for that slab of usage without creating legal baggage for our customers, our corporate culture would happily jump at it.
PS: I'm specifically looking at Cloud Marketplaces where people pay per hour for OSS images that get deployed to infrastructure and are charged consistently, fairly and legally.
Paras Parmar, Tech Architecture and Services.
|
|
|
|
|
What bugs me is that "Open Source communities" believe that they (/Stallman) invented open source, and there is a heavy price tag on anything that comes from another source (lacking a 'copyleft' or a page of legalese reducing your freedom not only with respect to not only the 'free' code, but to your own code as well).
This is utter bullshit. The two first OSes I used seriously, one for a mainframe, the second for a mini (PDP-11 class) was distributed in source form in the late 1970s. In 1979, my second year at the U, I was learning how a compiler worked by studying the source code of the standard Pascal compiler freely available form ETH Zürich. Our university subscribed to the ACM numerical algorithms library (sorry, I have forgotten the formal name of it!), distributed as Fortran IV source code. By 1980, it filled an entire shelf of heavy ring binders - a couple thousand functions, I believe (maybe it was even more than that). Internet was beginning to arrive, although slowly both in the coming and in line speeds, so tech universities started offering thousands by thousands of open source programs, available for ftp download. I guess a few CP members remember ftp.funet.fi, probably the largest open source ftp site of the day.
From their very first appearance "the OSS community" has tried to take the honor for something that was decades old when they presented their manifests. They try to take it over, take control, dictate their own rights to obtain everything for free, and declaring their own virtuous idealism as the justification for their demands of control, even over your source code.
Before the OSS manifests, the respect for the work of other developers were much higher. You just didn't rip off other people's code, even if it was available. OSS spread the idea that you indeed have the right to use any source code you can lay your hand on. If it carries an OSS license demanding that you make you own work available at no charge, then fine. If it does not, then there are no restrictions.
OSS is similar to so many congregations: The ideals and scriptures may be fine, but the priesthood (and to some degree the congregation) can give you the creeps.
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot really say for others but I don't really expect or care if anyone will contribute with my projects. Whatever I do as OSS was something useful to me or some concept I made up in my mind that I want out (so I can focus on other things), I maintain it working for my own needs, and I share because I think they might be just as useful to others as they are for me. These are usually so small and quick to be done (things I can get working in a week or two) that I don't care if someone will try and monetise it for themselves thus I just share. That's my opinion.
Whenever I get to write something I think is worth charging for, sure I will.
- Leonardo
|
|
|
|
|
This is a great discussion and I don't think you're wrong.
Quote: 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS?
When it comes to a full-blown piece of software with a Git-ridden release, that one may have spent a thousand hours or more on? I'd say Jeremy Falcon came up with a good list, but do the reasons stated justify the actions? I suppose some of those started as "side projects" for those every waking moment programmers.
Maybe one's hoping that it's good enough for some company to come along and buy it. It's pretty rare, but it does happen. Though I think you'd be better off getting to the MVP point and publishing it if that is your goal.
On a more macro level, where you're not looking at major-scale programs, it can serve as a CV to get additional paid work. I work with a dev who posts many fully working functions as OSS, which is how I found them. And they are making some good money (in their home country) from me as well as others. In another case, I reached out to an OSS publisher I found, and they told me they were too busy with other contracts to take on new work. So, there is that aspect.
The bar to creating a commercially viable product remains high today, though somewhat easier than it was in the 'pioneer days'. Which reminds me to kick myself, since back in the day, a couple of buddies and I created an actual working messenger system prior to Yahoo and MSN. My view off my back deck today might be a lot different if we put it out there as OSS?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for joining the discussion.
I believe some of my challenges are
1. Having this thing that would help a niche of users
2. Wanting to share all the details with other devs bec I believe in sharing and helping
3. Balancing that with not getting taken advantage of if the thing really does take off
I believe the naive hope of every OSS dev in the beginning is that “people and companies will do the right thing if my software helps them and it gets used in big ways”
That’s the world I want to live in.
Unfortunately the reality is something different and you have to do all of this “legal” work up front.
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote and released the SETI@Home SETIDriver application. Ended up I was the only person maintaining it but there were a couple of folks who found bugs for me that I had been unable to track down. Someone in the ARS Community built my web-site for SETIDriver.
That said, I can understand how unpaid maintainers can get to a point where they just shut down. I think their decision to pull the code is wrong since they put it out as OSS, but I can definitely understand why they would pull their support.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
