3 ms·

Agreed open source is very important. Does anyone here think all software should be open source? I'm interested to debate someone about that. I can't see how

Agreed open source is very important. Does anyone here think all software should be open source? I'm interested to debate someone about that. I can't see how that works unless the whole world stops using money.

CM30 11y ago
Well, the WordPress scene tends to make most of their software open source, including the stuff they charge for. For example, every official WooCommerce plugin is under the GPL, as is Gravity Forms and Easy Digital Downloads. These are also paid plugins. What this means is that once you download them, you can theoretically use them on as many sites as you like, release edited versions yourself or use them for as long as you need to. What they charge for is basically the following: 1. Updates, since otherwise you have to find and install any updates outside the WordPress dashboard. 2. Support from their support team That's how the WordPress scene in general works for paid products. The products themselves can be used however you like, but a paid license gives you access to support and much improved ease of use as far as updates and things are concerned. So you can make money from open source software, and it would theoretically be possible to have all software as open source.
schoen 11y ago
> I can't see how that works unless the whole world stops using money. I think Richard Stallman addressed your concern in the GNU Manifesto back in 1985. (I don't mean to suggest that his answers will necessarily convince you, just that the issue has been discussed explicitly for that long.)
- schoen 11y ago
  For subsequent thinking, there is a Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-sourc...
dllthomas 11y ago
> I can't see how that works unless the whole world stops using money. I'm hoping Snowdrift.coop makes it viable.
- benevol 11y ago
  Good idea short-term. Long-term, it should be financed via our taxes (best case: international agreement).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Define "it". Certainly not all FLO software is of sufficiently broad interest for public funding to make sense.
    - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
      One model that that could work is to start with a basic income. That would ensure that everyone has the option to simply spend their time as a low income inventor. Or perhaps part-time, well paid consultat, part-time low income inventor. Perhaps the next level up is simply to allocate some money as simple grants. As long as you manage to produce the basic paperwork you get some additional money thrown at you. I'm sure the lower end of such implementations are reasonably effective. After all their basic aim just to throw money around. On top of that there's really not that many projects left, I'm sure we can continue to invent custom solutions for those.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        I support a modest basic income. I do suspect that in that environment, we would see an increas in the range of projects tackled because people want to do them, want them done, want the fame, and similar. I also think there are projects that a grant program could effectively support. But I also think there is a really long tail of projects that some people would find worth having done, but that would not likely get done without someone paying, and would be difficult for grant issuers to distinguish from other projects that are simply not worth doing at all. I think Snowdrift - or something similar - could have a huge role in such a world. In particular, a basic income would make it easier for more people to contribute to a project and also reduce the amount of money necessary to see a project move forward.
jeena 11y ago
I personally don't care about open source software, I care about free software <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.....
pdkl95 11y ago
While I don't have time for an extended debate at the moment... The problem is thinking of software as a good (product). Software is not a scarce resource, so it is foolish to use tools such as capitalism (or other economic systems) as the model for the creation and distribution of software. Capitalism is very useful for optimizing the allocation of a scarce resource, but it doesn't apply for things that can be reproduced for free. A better model is recognizing that software development is a service. We are moving quickly into a future filled with automation, data analysis, and everything we call "AI"; the demand for software development will be increasing dramatically. Just like today, most of this development will be for specific business needs, which are rarely useful directly to outside the specific use they were developed for. Like plumbing, there will always be people who need software that is customized for their current situation. When you hire a plumber to install the waterworks for a new building, you don't expect them to develop their own type of pipe fittings; they use standard parts. Similarly, a business that has software needs should expect that the software developer they hire or contract will save time, money, and bugs by utilizing existing software that is available in the commons. The remaining bits of software that are necessary to customize the standard components for their specific needs are - by definition - not a "product" that is useful to others.
benevol 11y ago
Open-source software benefits everybody and is economically the most efficient solution (the wheel does not get reinvented; instead, you just clone and fork). One scenario could therefor be that open-source development is financed via taxes, meaning we should pressure the government to initiate that.
thomasahle 11y ago
I think the main argument is that most customers, and certainly enterprise customers, will pay for software even of the source code is available. Also requiring all software to use an open source development model is probably not necessary for security purposes.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Enterprise customers don't pay for software so much as support and accountability (that software firms often roll all this up into license fees rather than separating it out is irrelevant to what is motivating the enterprise purchase and justifying the cost.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

CM30 11y ago

Well, the WordPress scene tends to make most of their software open source, including the stuff they charge for. For example, every official WooCommerce plugin is under the GPL, as is Gravity Forms and Easy Digital Downloads. These are also paid plugins. What this means is that once you download them, you can theoretically use them on as many sites as you like, release edited versions yourself or use them for as long as you need to. What they charge for is basically the following: 1. Updates, since otherwise you have to find and install any updates outside the WordPress dashboard. 2. Support from their support team That's how the WordPress scene in general works for paid products. The products themselves can be used however you like, but a paid license gives you access to support and much improved ease of use as far as updates and things are concerned. So you can make money from open source software, and it would theoretically be possible to have all software as open source.

schoen 11y ago

> I can't see how that works unless the whole world stops using money. I think Richard Stallman addressed your concern in the GNU Manifesto back in 1985. (I don't mean to suggest that his answers will necessarily convince you, just that the issue has been discussed explicitly for that long.)

schoen 11y ago
For subsequent thinking, there is a Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-sourc...

dllthomas 11y ago

> I can't see how that works unless the whole world stops using money. I'm hoping Snowdrift.coop makes it viable.

benevol 11y ago
Good idea short-term. Long-term, it should be financed via our taxes (best case: international agreement).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Define "it". Certainly not all FLO software is of sufficiently broad interest for public funding to make sense.
  - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
    One model that that could work is to start with a basic income. That would ensure that everyone has the option to simply spend their time as a low income inventor. Or perhaps part-time, well paid consultat, part-time low income inventor. Perhaps the next level up is simply to allocate some money as simple grants. As long as you manage to produce the basic paperwork you get some additional money thrown at you. I'm sure the lower end of such implementations are reasonably effective. After all their basic aim just to throw money around. On top of that there's really not that many projects left, I'm sure we can continue to invent custom solutions for those.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      I support a modest basic income. I do suspect that in that environment, we would see an increas in the range of projects tackled because people want to do them, want them done, want the fame, and similar. I also think there are projects that a grant program could effectively support. But I also think there is a really long tail of projects that some people would find worth having done, but that would not likely get done without someone paying, and would be difficult for grant issuers to distinguish from other projects that are simply not worth doing at all. I think Snowdrift - or something similar - could have a huge role in such a world. In particular, a basic income would make it easier for more people to contribute to a project and also reduce the amount of money necessary to see a project move forward.

jeena 11y ago

I personally don't care about open source software, I care about free software <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.....

pdkl95 11y ago

While I don't have time for an extended debate at the moment... The problem is thinking of software as a good (product). Software is not a scarce resource, so it is foolish to use tools such as capitalism (or other economic systems) as the model for the creation and distribution of software. Capitalism is very useful for optimizing the allocation of a scarce resource, but it doesn't apply for things that can be reproduced for free. A better model is recognizing that software development is a service. We are moving quickly into a future filled with automation, data analysis, and everything we call "AI"; the demand for software development will be increasing dramatically. Just like today, most of this development will be for specific business needs, which are rarely useful directly to outside the specific use they were developed for. Like plumbing, there will always be people who need software that is customized for their current situation. When you hire a plumber to install the waterworks for a new building, you don't expect them to develop their own type of pipe fittings; they use standard parts. Similarly, a business that has software needs should expect that the software developer they hire or contract will save time, money, and bugs by utilizing existing software that is available in the commons. The remaining bits of software that are necessary to customize the standard components for their specific needs are - by definition - not a "product" that is useful to others.

benevol 11y ago

Open-source software benefits everybody and is economically the most efficient solution (the wheel does not get reinvented; instead, you just clone and fork). One scenario could therefor be that open-source development is financed via taxes, meaning we should pressure the government to initiate that.

thomasahle 11y ago

I think the main argument is that most customers, and certainly enterprise customers, will pay for software even of the source code is available. Also requiring all software to use an open source development model is probably not necessary for security purposes.

dragonwriter 11y ago
Enterprise customers don't pay for software so much as support and accountability (that software firms often roll all this up into license fees rather than separating it out is irrelevant to what is motivating the enterprise purchase and justifying the cost.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]