Open Source, whats the incentive after all??

[snktagarwal]

First of all I would like to take your time explaining that I am not only a Open Source Developer( an Undergraduate Student of Computer Science ) as well as Open Source Enthusiast. I've been a keen follower of the philosophy of Open Source, and always try to promote it in very way possible.

As you know open source has been largely formed on the basis of Community participation where hackers contribute to extend existing functionalities and/or fixing bugs. I was recently going through a Phd thesis of Berdou, 2007 which mentioned that all projects have two types of roles. One that involves maintaining the existing core functionalities and one that is related to extending it. Paid and professional coders have more incentive to fulfil the first job. Whereas the hackers are generally happy doing the other.

I strongly feel that Open Source should drive towards commercialisation though I dont have concrete thoughts about the same. I would like to invite thoughts on the following points:

1. In what ways do the present Open Source firms/projects/companies earn profit.
2. What incentive do coders have to get into Open Source
3. What are the threats that Open Source faces being a part of the commercialisation.

Please be free to contribute any sort of thoughts.... technical or philosophical

[GNU-Fan]

I strongly feel that Open Source should drive towards commercialisation

Wasn't "OpenSource" a term especially coined for business use because they were afraid that talking about Free Software would scare companies away?

1. In what ways do the present Open Source firms/projects/companies earn profit.

Mostly by providing support and warranties. "If you buy our package, we promise to help you and fix bugs for the next six months."
As you may know, most OSS licenses have a warranty disclaimer so this leaves a hole for companies to fill in if the management prefers to have someone they could ask and sue
You may want to check the ratio of budgets for software buys vs. support contracts of some companies. I don't have one but could image that the outcome will be interesting.

2. What incentive do coders have to get into Open Source

Earning money, gaining reputation, enjoying coding, ...

I hit the keys if I come to the conclusion that the only way to get a feature is to do it myself. Once the work has be done, why not send it back to the original author so he can include it?

The reasons are very diverse. It's like asking why people bother to answer question in forums.

3. What are the threats that Open Source faces being a part of the commercialisation.

I don't see any threats due to this specific reason, to be honest. Big threats are NDA'd documentation, patents and locked hardware. But this applies to "non-commercial" free software too.

[snktagarwal]

Earning money, gaining reputation, enjoying coding, ...

There are lots of brilliant coders( take for example my friends ) who ask this question to me too often. "What do you get by contributing as a hacker to the open source society, what's the incentive for small scale contribution to the open source society!" I just can't convince them with Stallman's quote of freedom to source code and humanity .

How do I convince them?? I really want to......... :P

[GNU-Fan]

There are lots of brilliant coders( take for example my friends ) who ask this question to me too often. "What do you get by contributing as a hacker to the open source society, what's the incentive for small scale contribution to the open source society!" I just can't convince them with Stallman's quote of freedom to source code and humanity .

How do I convince them?? I really want to......... :P

Here is my secret ammunition trunk
Philosophy of the GNU Project - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

But more seriously, I gave up trying to convince coders to enter the community.
Instead I simply tell the users about downsides of proprietary software so that the non-OSS coder doesn't get that much attention :P

[i92guboj]

Mostly by providing support and warranties. "If you buy our package, we promise to help you and fix bugs for the next six months."
As you may know, most OSS licenses have a warranty disclaimer so this leaves a hole for companies to fill in if the management prefers to have someone they could ask and sue

That's as good as it can be. In closed source products all you get is an "If you buy this, you are on your own. We promise no bugfixes, and once our support is gone you won't even have the chance to get this fixed because you haven't the source. So buy our next version."

Anyway, and in the lines of that, "open" doesn't mean "gratis". You can change as much money as you want for programming an open source solution as long as you release the source code once you are done.

I agree with this:

But more seriously, I gave up trying to convince coders to enter the community.

There's no point in trying to evangelize people who do not have any interest in this. You can explain what OSS is, and how the thing goes, but once they know, if they have no interest then there's no point in being redundant.

However, I dissagree with this one:

Instead I simply tell the users about downsides of proprietary software so that the non-OSS coder doesn't get that much attention :P

That reminds me a little about something I wrote a long time ago:
Gentoo Forums :: View topic - Nietzsche and Linux - Metaphisic thoughts

Some would say what the hell does Nietzsche has to do with OSS. Yeah, strange combo But this quote really reminds me from his book. OSS should grow strong based on their own meriths, and not based on the weaknesses of any other OS. OSS should also be "good" based on it's own phylosophy, and not as an opposition to "the evil that lures somewhere else". That's the moral of the slave that Nietzsche talks about. We still need to talk about "how bad windows is" to attract people to "our side".

That mentality is a bit sick if you ask me, and I shall never agree with it. I am not a linux zealot, nor crusader against ms or any other force. I use and love linux (and have for around 15 years now) for what it is, and not for what it fights against. Let that to religions and to the starship troopers (what an horrid movie, all of them ).

[GNU-Fan]

Hello guboj,

Some would say what the hell does Nietzsche has to do with OSS. Yeah, strange combo But this quote really reminds me from his book. OSS should grow strong based on their own meriths, and not based on the weaknesses of any other OS. OSS should also be "good" based on it's own phylosophy, and not as an opposition to "the evil that lures somewhere else". That's the moral of the slave that Nietzsche talks about. We still need to talk about "how bad windows is" to attract people to "our side".

That mentality is a bit sick if you ask me, and I shall never agree with it. I am not a linux zealot, nor crusader against ms or any other force. I use and love linux (and have for around 15 years now) for what it is, and not for what it fights against. Let that to religions and to the starship troopers (what an horrid movie, all of them ).

I fully support this statement if this kind of comparison is drawn in the technical or practical merit only.

But -- and I think this is where the minor differences between the Free Software and the OpenSource movement come to bear -- "conscious" free software was invented out of a necessity. Some people felt that "the other software" denied them natural rights. (like sharing, looking what is does, ...)

This is why I think it is hard to explain the pros without the "historical" cons.