5 ms·

Open source is 20: How it changed programming and business forever

41 points by CrankyBear 9y ago

jwatte 9y ago
Open source is much older. I remember contributing to nethack 30 years ago, and rogue was older than that. Saying ESR defined open source is giving way too much credit.
- acqq 9y ago
  Specifically: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto “The GNU Manifesto was written by Richard Stallman and published in March 1985” It is mentioned in the article.
  - cat199 9y ago
    GNU builds on (one interpretation of) an older tradition/culture/practice/whatever of source redistribution which goes back to the dawn of computing..
  - romwell 9y ago
    Yes, and also Open Source =/= Free Software (which is also talked about in the article). Free Software predates Open Source.
- CrankyBear 9y ago
  The article deals with this. And, while esr is mentioned, he doesn't get anything like all the credit.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    But either way: it’s older than 20
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - romwell 9y ago
      The point of the article is that it's not, in the context of Open Source having a certain philosophy behind it. In particular, the article distinguishes Free Software from Open Source, and highlights the difference in emphasis. The claim of the article is that this difference is what led to widespread commercial adoption of Open Source -- but not Free Software. The distinction between the two is what Stallman is very wary of.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        The term is 20 years old but that’s functionally meaningless if the practices are older. Which they are. A lot older. This makes as much sense as saying computers have been around since 1613 when the term first showed up. It’s nonsense.
        romwell 9y ago
        The point that Stallman, and the article, makes is that both the philosophy and practices of Free Software and Open Source are, in fact, different -- which, arguably, is why Open Source practices have met wide adoption in the industry, to the extent that Free Software philosophy and practices did not. If you disagree, please state how your disagreement sees Stallman's argument (linked elsewhere in the comments) about the difference. Specifically regarding practices: large corporations absolutely did NOT have large-scale software projects in which outsiders could both participate and benefit from via inspection and modification of source code more than 20 years ago. This is what Open Source is really about.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  Title should be "The Term 'Open Source' is 20" but no one would have clicked that link.
rectang 9y ago
Open source empowers software authors, giving them more control over their creations than deadline-driven company funding can (even when management is well-meaning). At the same time, open source does not harm capital -- in many cases it presents a superior alternative to proprietary competition and thus is a better investment. It seems to me that Open Source achieves certain aspects of what we might hope for from unions and guilds and other models of labor organization -- a strong, mutually beneficial framework for the collaboration of labor and capital.
- paulryanrogers 9y ago
  Rarely beneficial for labors' wages, on the whole.
  - rectang 9y ago
    Hmm, what does that mean? Open source increases the ability of individual authors to develop skills which are transferable, which is advantageous in the job market. Simultaneously, being able to hire expertise in a given open source technology is valuable enough that it is worthwhile for companies to pay a premium for it. So I'd assert that indeed, open source is beneficial for labor's wages. (At least for those workers who participate in it, as there is a barrier to entry which is easier to overcome if you have the time and resources to invest.)
    - paulryanrogers 9y ago
      Transferable skills is a good point. I was thinking more of the value developers created being more freely accessible, and therefore making employers/consumers less willing to pay for it. Companies would pay to develop/buy non-core software such as for infrastructure which they can now get nearly free. On the whole FOSS seems to push the money into the hands of service company owners, since services are not themselves FOSS (usually, excluding AGPL).
yarrel 9y ago
By allowing them to ignore user freedom.
- rectang 9y ago
  The environment around "open source" is less litigious than the environment around "free software" because of enforcement. This is key to the willingness of companies to invest in open source products.
GuiA 9y ago
For those who might not be familiar with the distinction, Stallman's article "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" is worth a read: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- romwell 9y ago
  That difference is also talked about in the linked article, but who reads that? :)
donarb 9y ago
I recall the story about Bill Gates at Harvard in the 70's. Programmers there would store programs on punched tape and leave it in a desk drawer. Others were encouraged to use and modify the code and share their changes. Gates balked at that idea. Surely an example of open source before it was formally named.
- cmsj 9y ago
  Correct. Open Source as an informal concept is how almost all software used to work. It was folk like Bill Gates who saw an opportunity to make money by making it proprietary. Also, some of the formal concepts are more than 20 years old - e.g. Free Software: the precursors of GPL-style copyleft go back to the mid-late 1980s (GPL v1 was published 29 years ago this month).
  - acqq 9y ago
    For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
open-source-ux 9y ago
Despite the passage of time, is it any easier today for a small startup or individual developer to make a living from their open source product? Thousands of developers make money building products or services for clients or customers using open source software. But what if the developer simply wants to charge a business for using their open source product? The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that you can sell your free software by charging for distribution [1] (for example via CD-ROMs). But while physical media may have made sense in an era of dial-up modems and low-bandwidth connections, no-one can realistically charge for distribution today - not least when so many projects are hosted for free on GitHub. So what's the alternative if you aren't a large company? There's the dual-licencing approach (Red Hat). The open core approach (GitLab). There's also the option of charging for support only (probably the most unattractive and unappealing option for many developers). Or there's the Kickstarter or Patreon approach (e.g. Krita) which simply isn't a sustainable long-term solution. For developers who want to support themselves with their open source product, it seems amazing that we have no licencing model for the following scenario: I have an open source product. It will forever be open source. You are free to evaluate the software as long as you need to. If you are a business, you must pay a fee to use the software if you wish to continue using it after evaluation. You don't get more features for paying the fee: there are no closed-sourced extensions available for additional cost. There is no tracking of software usage - we rely on your goodwill to pay for the software if you use it for your business. What, if anything, is unrealistic or unreasonable about this scenario? And do current open source licences support it? [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- rectang 9y ago
  > Despite the passage of time, is it any easier today for a small startup or individual developer to make a living from their open source product? You answer your own question: > Thousands of developers make money building products or services for clients or customers using open source software. That is the model that has grown massively. There are many more companies these days with acceptable open source contribution policies and who will pay their employees for time spent contributing to open source when that time provides the company with good value. > But what if the developer simply wants to charge a business for using their open source product? That's harder. But does it matter?

41 points by CrankyBear 9y ago

Open source is much older. I remember contributing to nethack 30 years ago, and rogue was older than that. Saying ESR defined open source is giving way too much credit.

acqq 9y ago
Specifically: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto “The GNU Manifesto was written by Richard Stallman and published in March 1985” It is mentioned in the article.
- cat199 9y ago
  GNU builds on (one interpretation of) an older tradition/culture/practice/whatever of source redistribution which goes back to the dawn of computing..
- romwell 9y ago
  Yes, and also Open Source =/= Free Software (which is also talked about in the article). Free Software predates Open Source.
CrankyBear 9y ago
The article deals with this. And, while esr is mentioned, he doesn't get anything like all the credit.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  But either way: it’s older than 20
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - romwell 9y ago
    The point of the article is that it's not, in the context of Open Source having a certain philosophy behind it. In particular, the article distinguishes Free Software from Open Source, and highlights the difference in emphasis. The claim of the article is that this difference is what led to widespread commercial adoption of Open Source -- but not Free Software. The distinction between the two is what Stallman is very wary of.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      The term is 20 years old but that’s functionally meaningless if the practices are older. Which they are. A lot older. This makes as much sense as saying computers have been around since 1613 when the term first showed up. It’s nonsense.
      - romwell 9y ago
        The point that Stallman, and the article, makes is that both the philosophy and practices of Free Software and Open Source are, in fact, different -- which, arguably, is why Open Source practices have met wide adoption in the industry, to the extent that Free Software philosophy and practices did not. If you disagree, please state how your disagreement sees Stallman's argument (linked elsewhere in the comments) about the difference. Specifically regarding practices: large corporations absolutely did NOT have large-scale software projects in which outsiders could both participate and benefit from via inspection and modification of source code more than 20 years ago. This is what Open Source is really about.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
Title should be "The Term 'Open Source' is 20" but no one would have clicked that link.

rectang 9y ago

Open source empowers software authors, giving them more control over their creations than deadline-driven company funding can (even when management is well-meaning). At the same time, open source does not harm capital -- in many cases it presents a superior alternative to proprietary competition and thus is a better investment. It seems to me that Open Source achieves certain aspects of what we might hope for from unions and guilds and other models of labor organization -- a strong, mutually beneficial framework for the collaboration of labor and capital.

paulryanrogers 9y ago
Rarely beneficial for labors' wages, on the whole.
- rectang 9y ago
  Hmm, what does that mean? Open source increases the ability of individual authors to develop skills which are transferable, which is advantageous in the job market. Simultaneously, being able to hire expertise in a given open source technology is valuable enough that it is worthwhile for companies to pay a premium for it. So I'd assert that indeed, open source is beneficial for labor's wages. (At least for those workers who participate in it, as there is a barrier to entry which is easier to overcome if you have the time and resources to invest.)
  - paulryanrogers 9y ago
    Transferable skills is a good point. I was thinking more of the value developers created being more freely accessible, and therefore making employers/consumers less willing to pay for it. Companies would pay to develop/buy non-core software such as for infrastructure which they can now get nearly free. On the whole FOSS seems to push the money into the hands of service company owners, since services are not themselves FOSS (usually, excluding AGPL).

yarrel 9y ago

By allowing them to ignore user freedom.

rectang 9y ago
The environment around "open source" is less litigious than the environment around "free software" because of enforcement. This is key to the willingness of companies to invest in open source products.

GuiA 9y ago

For those who might not be familiar with the distinction, Stallman's article "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" is worth a read: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

romwell 9y ago
That difference is also talked about in the linked article, but who reads that? :)

donarb 9y ago

I recall the story about Bill Gates at Harvard in the 70's. Programmers there would store programs on punched tape and leave it in a desk drawer. Others were encouraged to use and modify the code and share their changes. Gates balked at that idea. Surely an example of open source before it was formally named.

cmsj 9y ago
Correct. Open Source as an informal concept is how almost all software used to work. It was folk like Bill Gates who saw an opportunity to make money by making it proprietary. Also, some of the formal concepts are more than 20 years old - e.g. Free Software: the precursors of GPL-style copyleft go back to the mid-late 1980s (GPL v1 was published 29 years ago this month).
- acqq 9y ago
  For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

open-source-ux 9y ago

Despite the passage of time, is it any easier today for a small startup or individual developer to make a living from their open source product? Thousands of developers make money building products or services for clients or customers using open source software. But what if the developer simply wants to charge a business for using their open source product? The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that you can sell your free software by charging for distribution [1] (for example via CD-ROMs). But while physical media may have made sense in an era of dial-up modems and low-bandwidth connections, no-one can realistically charge for distribution today - not least when so many projects are hosted for free on GitHub. So what's the alternative if you aren't a large company? There's the dual-licencing approach (Red Hat). The open core approach (GitLab). There's also the option of charging for support only (probably the most unattractive and unappealing option for many developers). Or there's the Kickstarter or Patreon approach (e.g. Krita) which simply isn't a sustainable long-term solution. For developers who want to support themselves with their open source product, it seems amazing that we have no licencing model for the following scenario: I have an open source product. It will forever be open source. You are free to evaluate the software as long as you need to. If you are a business, you must pay a fee to use the software if you wish to continue using it after evaluation. You don't get more features for paying the fee: there are no closed-sourced extensions available for additional cost. There is no tracking of software usage - we rely on your goodwill to pay for the software if you use it for your business. What, if anything, is unrealistic or unreasonable about this scenario? And do current open source licences support it? [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

rectang 9y ago
> Despite the passage of time, is it any easier today for a small startup or individual developer to make a living from their open source product? You answer your own question: > Thousands of developers make money building products or services for clients or customers using open source software. That is the model that has grown massively. There are many more companies these days with acceptable open source contribution policies and who will pay their employees for time spent contributing to open source when that time provides the company with good value. > But what if the developer simply wants to charge a business for using their open source product? That's harder. But does it matter?

​Open source is 20: How it changed programming and business forever

​Open source is 20: How it changed programming and business forever

Open source is 20: How it changed programming and business forever

Open source is 20: How it changed programming and business forever