49 ms·
Open source empowers software authors, giving them more control over their creations than deadline-driven company funding can (even when management is well-mean
by 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 agoRarely beneficial for labors' wages, on the whole.
- rectang 9y agoHmm, 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 agoTransferable 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).