Free Software Philosphy

[Extravaganzo]

Hi,
Recently I've been drawn to the whole Open source/Free software movement. I've come to believe that's its cool to give others the right to see and forge the inner of your creation because you'll actually be doing the same to others creation and keep the developing wheel spinning.
I'm having hard time fitting part of your philosophy in my own ideology. You study, design implement and consume your time to build up something great, something that actually others might appreciate, might not but anyways they're easily entitled to develop it even more or even screw it up.
so it will get down to this, everything that you put into something, it should pay off -unless you're volunteering- or else you're an idiot.
so how the heck free software developers get their payoffs ?

[Cabhan]

Well, there are two different open-source / free software philosophies, embodied primarily in two different licenses.

The GNU Public License (GPL) is the most common Linux license. The GPL states that any modifications to a GPL'd program must also be released under the GPL, and that any program that is distributed and links with a GPL'd program must be released under the GPL.

The BSD License simply states that the software is open-source. Anyone may modify it, and may choose whether or not to license their modifications under the BSD license.

The GPL is referred to as a "viral" license because it can force other software to be GPL'd. The BSD does not do this.

Now then, interestingly, neither of these licenses prohibits charging for your software. Instead, they require that when the software is distributed, the source code must be made available to anyone who receives the software. For instance, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is frequently purchased by businesses, along with a support contract. This is entirely legal, but the source code for RHEL must be made available to such customers (and in fact, another distribution, CentOS, is simply RHEL for free).

So then, what do developers get out of making open-source software?

Well, the first thing to realize is that most open-source developers do not do this as their main job. Instead, they are writing software to fill a hole that they find in their own workflow. However, more people will tend to accomplish more, so the code is made open-source to allow other developers to contribute.

Open-source developers also receive a great deal of respect from other open-source developers. People can learn from each other's code, and a developer can have his skills recognized.

It is true that most open-source developers do not receive great financial rewards from their software. Those vendors that do monetize open-source software tend to do it via support contracts, not simple distribution. However, so far this has not been an obstacle to innovation.

[Extravaganzo]

So then, what do developers get out of making open-source software?

Well, the first thing to realize is that most open-source developers do not do this as their main job. Instead, they are writing software to fill a hole that they find in their own workflow. However, more people will tend to accomplish more, so the code is made open-source to allow other developers to contribute.

Open-source developers also receive a great deal of respect from other open-source developers. People can learn from each other's code, and a developer can have his skills recognized.

I've presumed that developers don't take it as their source-of-living main job. Basically, you can't make living out of this "great deal of respect and skills recognition".
its also quite of nonsense to charge for an open-source software people can get its source freely and compile it. I'm not talking RHEL here, I'm talking Games, Media-players and basically desktop apps. Open source version of this stuff is made out of boredom or skill showbiz.
And as the world is going all for Data Centers Clouds and SaaS, I guess its ok to charge people for a "service" while providing its source for people to mod it and do whatever the hell they want to do with it.

[GNU-Fan]

Hello,

as I witnessed both worlds from the perspective of a programmer, I think I may compare both briefly.

a) Once I was hired as programmer to develop a game that was meant to be distributed proprietary. (i. e. with the sources withheld from the users)
The boss told me what he wanted, I implemented it and got a monthly paycheck for this.

b) Later I got hired by another employers to improve and enhance a Free Software package. The bosses told me what they wanted, I implemented it and got a monthly paycheck for this.


So what did I get paid for? In both cases, obviously for the work I did, and this is the way it should be. If you feel a certain software needs improvement, why not pay somebody to do it? And if you are to hire someone, you are most likely to ask the person with the most experience first, and that would be the original developer.


What was the difference between the two above cases? Well, the proprietary project was cancelled. It now rods (literally) in a sealed box in the attic of the employer's house, without any chance to be of any use for anybody. All my work spoiled.
The Free Software projects don't have this problem. I can be positive they might be of utility and will spread, so more people enjoy it. And should I want to get a job in this area again, I can point out where to find my former work in my application, thus improving the chances of being hired.

[reed9]

The majority of people contributing to the linux kernel are paid developers.

Aside from the philosophy, there are some very good practical reasons to develop open source software. For many companies, the point isn't that you make money on the software, but because of the software. Take much of the internet - it runs on linux servers. Amazon runs on linux, Google runs on linux. Open source software has enabled these companies to become hugely profitable. A different example is Apple, which used BSD as a base to create their operating system. Operating on a BSD license, they of course, don't have to give anything back to the community.

Also, an awful lot of what programs do are run common routines, basic tasks over and over again. It's silly to reinvent the wheel and write new code everytime you want to do some simple common task. Open source allows people to share and build on each other's work and have more time to innovate and create new things, rather than spend time re-solving old problems that have already been solved a hundred times before.

GNU-Fan's point is also very good that if a proprietary company goes down, all that code and work may disappear for good. Open source can continue on and help people.

Here's an article on the economics of free:
The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free | Techdirt

[Extravaganzo]

For many companies, the point isn't that you make money on the software, but because of the software. Take much of the internet - it runs on linux servers. Amazon runs on linux, Google runs on linux. Open source software has enabled these companies to become hugely profitable.

Dude, you have hit the nail right on the head. now I can finally find peace with myself LOL!
take that and apply it as a llifestyle, see, its just repulsive and mean to try so hard to conceal and cover up secrets of your creativity and success and deprive the world to evolve. Just like GNU -fan said those who commit these atrocities will go down in the trash of history and will die out away into the oblivion. and I just delivered a heavy wordy but rightfully line, cool me ; )