I'm always amused when people don't understand open source, when they take the nonsense of its adversaries — that it's socialist or communist — as gospel and act as though that's true.
Open source is capitalism. It's a capitalistic model. It's designed to help people compete and to make money.
Yes, open source spreads software wealth, but that has been the primary feature of capitalism for over 200 years. When capitalism discovers abundance, market processes give people an incentive to spread it around, broadly, creating new, more prosperous buyers by bidding up the value of labor. It's only in the face of scarcity that capitalism swallows its tail, the wealthy eating their own seed corn, weakening their future in the name of current consumption.
It's human nature. You do it too. When you lose your job (as I did with ZDNet) you get cheap, start rationing. Companies do that, whole systems do that. (Not that it benefits the system to crawl inside its own shell — for capitalism to work there must be buyers for what is being sold or things break down.)
Open source creates abundance. By making the code available, you create wealth. Wealth then creates a larger market for you to compete in. Closed source may be a great way for you to make money, but its wealth effect is limited to those who buy and sell.
And so we come to the news that Canonical, the company that actually supports Ubuntu, is (gasp) trying to make money from the services enabled by its distribution.
Where did the love go, asks Bryce Byfield.
Instead of being the model corporate member of the community that it first appeared, today Ubuntu/ Canonical increasingly seems concerned with its own interests rather than those of FOSS as a whole. No doubt there are sound business reasons for the change, but many interpret it as proof of hypocrisy. Added to the suspicion towards the corporate world that lingers in many parts of the FOSS community, the change looks damning, especially when it is so clearly documented in Canonical's corporate history.
Of course there is no contradiction.
The open source division of labor between software's .org (or its open forge) and the primary .com group providing support has always been clear.
The .org creates wealth and spreads it around. The .com tries to make a living and contributes much of that income to the .com. The main sponsor has the greatest responsibility in this area, but then it gains the greatest benefit from being close to the source, and the main driver of its evolution.
If you don't like it, you have recourse. You can fork the code. You can take that responsibility of directing a code base, recruiting followers, organizing and maintaining the code base yourself. It's a full-time job. As the code base grows it becomes several, then many full time jobs. And how are these people to make a living?
When you take the assumption of your adversaries, apply it to yourself, and then try to live by that code, you're going to go crazy. Open source is about creating and spreading wealth, but that does not make it socialist or communist. It's capitalism and it works, as capitalism does at its best, through the economics of abundance.
You did notice Mark Shuttleworth (above) is a millionaire, didn't you?
Open source is neither socialist or capitalist. Open source is open source (hey, that’s why the words are different: the word socialist is different from the words open source; the word capitalist is different from the words open source).
Of course, only liberals get confused.
And to apply it to the question at hand: you can use open source can be used to make money. And then it’s part of the capitalist money making, wealth creating system. It’s so simple. No need for a blog.
Now, of course that’s when the socialists, liberals, and closet-muslims (In Chief) come into play: they want to steal your money and redistribute it to people who don’t produce.
Open source is neither socialist or capitalist. Open source is open source (hey, that’s why the words are different: the word socialist is different from the words open source; the word capitalist is different from the words open source).
Of course, only liberals get confused.
And to apply it to the question at hand: you can use open source can be used to make money. And then it’s part of the capitalist money making, wealth creating system. It’s so simple. No need for a blog.
Now, of course that’s when the socialists, liberals, and closet-muslims (In Chief) come into play: they want to steal your money and redistribute it to people who don’t produce.
Y’know, I’m halfway struggling through “How To Think Like A Computer Scientist” and, as I read this, I wonder if I’m the only person learning to code on their own purely out of indignation. My area of study in college was not computer related, but I do understand colonialism and it’s disturbing to me how many people with computer sciences degrees obviously don’t.
Y’know, I’m halfway struggling through “How To Think Like A Computer Scientist” and, as I read this, I wonder if I’m the only person learning to code on their own purely out of indignation. My area of study in college was not computer related, but I do understand colonialism and it’s disturbing to me how many people with computer sciences degrees obviously don’t.
Let’s see WordPress is Open Source and many people make money from it. Some people take extra time and offer extra support so they sell their plug-in or Theme. I don’t have a problem with those people either.
I don’t have a problem with either model. The expectation with proprietary software is that the seller has to offer a certain level of support. With Open Source, the source has no obligation to fix your problems.
Let’s see WordPress is Open Source and many people make money from it. Some people take extra time and offer extra support so they sell their plug-in or Theme. I don’t have a problem with those people either.
I don’t have a problem with either model. The expectation with proprietary software is that the seller has to offer a certain level of support. With Open Source, the source has no obligation to fix your problems.
JCDI: Exactly right. Unless you pay for a support contract. At which point there’s no difference between open source and a proprietary program.
There is more to open source than money, but there is in fact money. Just as there is money in the Interstate Highway system, shared infrastructure built with U.S. tax dollars.
Only you’re not taxed to use open source software, except (for some) mentally.
Thanks for writing.
JCDI: Exactly right. Unless you pay for a support contract. At which point there’s no difference between open source and a proprietary program.
There is more to open source than money, but there is in fact money. Just as there is money in the Interstate Highway system, shared infrastructure built with U.S. tax dollars.
Only you’re not taxed to use open source software, except (for some) mentally.
Thanks for writing.