7 ms·

I think everything you said is also true of musicians, artists, actors, writers, athletes, game developers, youtubers, and twitch streamers, just to name a few.

I think everything you said is also true of musicians, artists, actors, writers, athletes, game developers, youtubers, and twitch streamers, just to name a few. The problem for all of these categories is that lots of people want to do the job. There is basically an unlimited supply of people that like to write novels, make programming languages, play soccer, or make video games. That makes it a buyers market. "What? This iPhone game is $0.99? No way. I'll play one of the million free iPhone games instead." For every singer, basketball player, or instagram personality that hits the big time, there are thousands that never made a dollar doing it. For better or worse, authoring an open source library is one of those things that there is no shortage of people willing to do, so I am not optimistic about use of "business innovations" to solve this problem. If those innovations are in any way non-consumer friendly, consumers are just going to choose a different open source tool/project.

spullara 8y ago
In none of the cases you mention is the author's work used to make millions of dollars with nothing going to the artist. This comparison is nonsense.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  Sure, I agree that consumers use video games, for example, for personal enjoyment, whereas cloud providers use OSS to make millions. But that difference does not change the market dynamics in any way. In both cases, the effects of a near unlimited supply of creators is having the same effect, regardless of how their creations get used. Perhaps the difference changes the ethics of the situation, I don't know, but I remain equally skeptical of "business innovations" being able to help the OSS creators as I am "business innovations" being able to help aspiring rock stars and shortstops.
  - x0x0 8y ago
    Except games either (1) are pay-per-purchase, or (2) are free-to-play and subsidized by whales. In both cases, high usage games tend to make enough to justify the economics of continued support and development. That's almost exactly the opposite of very popular OSS software, which generates an endless wave of free users. And generally no whales. And high demands for bug fixes. And serious temper tantrums (this has happened to me too) when you explain to users of your free software that you owe them exactly fuck. and. all. and won't be hopping-to in order to fix something for them.
    - jaredklewis 8y ago
      > In both cases, high usage games tend to make enough to justify the economics of continued support and development. Sure there are some runaway indie hits that make money to cover the development. And Linus Torvalds gets paid $10 million per year to work on open source. But nearly all indie game developers never make anything from their games, same as OSS authors. (Indie games are an the appropriate comparison since we are talking about independent OSS authors, not Facebook developers working on React). In any case, I am not arguing that all of these endeavors are equivalent in all ways. My only point is that all of the fields have an oversupply of creators. The result is that creators don't have leverage over consumers. To really spell it out: if OSS library creators try sticking the commons clause or other "innovations" on their projects, most businesses are just going to go find another library that does the same thing, without the restriction.
      - taf2 8y ago
        Perhaps a good open source analogy might be libcurl. And just take the many ruby bindings. Since about 2007 or so I’ve maintained a libcurl ruby binding. Other than perhaps using it in some of my own commercial works - that project has netted me $0 and yet has plenty of alternative open source libraries that compete with it for the mind share of the ruby community.... I want great open source projects to prosper so that we can use them to build cool things solve real problems and make real money
      - spullara 8y ago
        The big difference is that those Indie games make money for no one. It isn't like there is some giant cloud company hosting your indie game and selling it to consumers and cutting you out of the equation. There is no demand for that game. On the OSS side there is often huge demand with no compensation to the developer. I'm not making a judgement on whether that is good or bad, I assume most OSS developers know that is the way it works, but I am saying that it isn't comparable to a bunch of games that have no demand and people are making them for their own satisfaction. I have an OSS project used by 1000s of people and many huge companies. I don't get compensated for that directly and I don't expect to. I'm just happy to be able to use it on my own projects no matter what company I am working with.
- sambroner 8y ago
  What about college football players, Mid-tier content creators, etc? These are people who are providing a service, potentially because it’s a passion, but other entities soak up the profit. You seem to be arguing that these people (in the grandparent comment and my own) do get paid, but my understanding is that they don’t, or barely do.
  - electic 8y ago
    There are lawsuits pending on the issue of college players not getting paid. It is a problem and it is going to get sorted out soon.
  - spullara 8y ago
    That is a better analogy imho.
- phobosdeimos 8y ago
  Thats the deal with open source. Don't like it commercialize and see if you can make it your day job. You'll have to pay programmers too though, no more free work from the community.
- jasonlotito 8y ago
  Because none of those cases have people giving permission for their work to be used by others to make millions of dollars. If someone gave their work away into the public domain, and then someone used that work to make millions, their shouldn't be an expectation that the other person somehow owes the other money. If you think your code is worth money, sell it. LGPL/GPL/AGPL exist for a reason. Not my fault you used BSD/MIT and didn't consider what you were explicitly allowing and encouraging people to do.
  - spullara 8y ago
    Agree 100%.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    > their shouldn't be an expectation that the other person somehow owes the other money. There btw. Also, it would be common decency but we live in an era where if something cannot be enforced in court then you should not be surprised somebody is [not] doing it. Oh well.
    - jasonlotito 8y ago
      By the way.
- 3x 8y ago
  That's the whole point, isn't it? That's a good thing, right? Of course society at large should incentivize and facilitate the creation of open source software, but it seems the alternative you're suggesting (that the people making millions must financially support the original creators) would render the software proprietary.
  - spullara 8y ago
    I don't really think that. I just think that the comparison is faulty as there is just no demand for the failed artists work.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    As a matter of fact yes, if I were an OSS creator and people made millions from my work, some basic appreciation would be quite nice actually. If companies X, Y and Z make $10 million a month and this is partially enabled by my software, giving systemic donations in the orders of $10k - $20k a month would only be common sense in my mind. (And I know I would have a "donation budget" if I was a businessman because I am not stupid and I know the work of which people outside my company facilitates my business further.) But appreciation is not what businessmen do. 99% are cut-throats in all areas of their lives.
jondubois 8y ago
That's true. When the concept of open source software was first introduced, it was seen as a desperate way to get users but it was an effective strategy at the time. Today, giving software for free is not enough - I think that the next trend will be to pay people to use your OSS software. Probably with cryptocurrency.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >When the concept of open source software was first introduced, it was seen as a desperate way to get users but it was an effective strategy at the time This was not the motive for free software's beginning, nor does it describe the beginning of the term "open source." The concept rose out of early computing allowing and sometimes encouraging users to share and improve software, and the true start of the movement envisioned a model similar to Red Hat, where the software is sold though sharing is not restricted. Forcing user payment is effectively impossible for open source software, someone can just buy a copy and redistribute it without the required payment, so your prediction is a movement away from open source software.
  - Avamander 8y ago
    Forcing is not possible indeed. But I think this is comparable to the tax system, not everyone contributes equally or as they should but most public utilities still work from those people's contributions who are honest. It's kind-of depressing to think about people trying their best to freeload instead of paying a (symbolic) price, don't you think?
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      >It's kind-of depressing to think about people trying their best to freeload instead of paying a (symbolic) price, don't you think? Not particularly. It's depressing to see businesses profitably exploit that work, and irritating to see people develop a sense of entitlement without ever contributing back. Though I wish more general users donated to projects, people using the software without paying seems better than people not using or paying for the software, and far better than paying and being unable to use the software.
chipotle_coyote 8y ago
There is basically an unlimited supply of people that like to write novels, make programming languages, play soccer, or make video games. There is an unlimited supply of people who say they would like to write novels, make programming languages, play soccer [professionally], or make video games. The supply of people who have the drive and patience to complete a novel or programming language or video game for free or on spec is arguably much smaller. The same is also true of open source libraries. There may be an effectively unlimited supply of GitHub repositories containing new JavaScript frameworks and template languages, but the majority of them haven't gotten very far past the README file. And, we haven't even addressed the question of whether they have the skill and talent to make a good novel or programming language or video game or open source library. Having said all that, I think the original article is on point in at least one crucial respect: all of these cited kinds of work require a huge investment of time, and it's very hard to sustain that investment without money. This is why I always get very frustrated with the particular kind of pseudo-libertarian who blithely asserts that artists and writers don't need to be fairly compensated for their work, because clearly they'd keep doing it solely out of the love of creation. In reality, artists and writers--and open source programmers--aren't likely to put in "second job" level hours without compensation indefinitely. They're going to have a family, or develop more relaxing hobbies, or possibly just get frustrated by the ongoing effort. I don't know if "business innovations" can solve this problem, but I think it's worth looking for more ways for developers (and writers and artists and...) to bring in some kind of stable recurring revenue.
- wokwokwok 8y ago
  I agree that some kind of disruption of this space would be great, to reward creatives. ...but practically how do you do it? The parent comment is quite right, going from 'pay x' to 'pay y' is one thing... but from 'pay nothing' to 'pay anything' is a massive and difficult step. You can't make it mandatory; theres a glut of stuff out there, and people will just move on to the next free (perhaps crappier, but free!) version. 'business innovations may help' is just a nice way of saying 'well darn, nothing we've tried in the last 10 years to fix this has worked... hm. Don't really have a solution for this, but it'd be great if someone figured one out!' ...which I totally agree with, sure, but its not really helpful or practical. Seriously, nothing people have tried (tips, patreon, foundations) has worked very well. No one is going to solve this problem any time soon. Of you're an open source library author/maintainer, you've got to acknowledge you're not just magically get rewarded for your efforts; you have to work for it, and (probably, for most people) your attempts to monetize it will fail. The same is true for all creatives.

spullara 8y ago

In none of the cases you mention is the author's work used to make millions of dollars with nothing going to the artist. This comparison is nonsense.

jaredklewis 8y ago
Sure, I agree that consumers use video games, for example, for personal enjoyment, whereas cloud providers use OSS to make millions. But that difference does not change the market dynamics in any way. In both cases, the effects of a near unlimited supply of creators is having the same effect, regardless of how their creations get used. Perhaps the difference changes the ethics of the situation, I don't know, but I remain equally skeptical of "business innovations" being able to help the OSS creators as I am "business innovations" being able to help aspiring rock stars and shortstops.
- x0x0 8y ago
  Except games either (1) are pay-per-purchase, or (2) are free-to-play and subsidized by whales. In both cases, high usage games tend to make enough to justify the economics of continued support and development. That's almost exactly the opposite of very popular OSS software, which generates an endless wave of free users. And generally no whales. And high demands for bug fixes. And serious temper tantrums (this has happened to me too) when you explain to users of your free software that you owe them exactly fuck. and. all. and won't be hopping-to in order to fix something for them.
  - jaredklewis 8y ago
    > In both cases, high usage games tend to make enough to justify the economics of continued support and development. Sure there are some runaway indie hits that make money to cover the development. And Linus Torvalds gets paid $10 million per year to work on open source. But nearly all indie game developers never make anything from their games, same as OSS authors. (Indie games are an the appropriate comparison since we are talking about independent OSS authors, not Facebook developers working on React). In any case, I am not arguing that all of these endeavors are equivalent in all ways. My only point is that all of the fields have an oversupply of creators. The result is that creators don't have leverage over consumers. To really spell it out: if OSS library creators try sticking the commons clause or other "innovations" on their projects, most businesses are just going to go find another library that does the same thing, without the restriction.
    - taf2 8y ago
      Perhaps a good open source analogy might be libcurl. And just take the many ruby bindings. Since about 2007 or so I’ve maintained a libcurl ruby binding. Other than perhaps using it in some of my own commercial works - that project has netted me $0 and yet has plenty of alternative open source libraries that compete with it for the mind share of the ruby community.... I want great open source projects to prosper so that we can use them to build cool things solve real problems and make real money
    - spullara 8y ago
      The big difference is that those Indie games make money for no one. It isn't like there is some giant cloud company hosting your indie game and selling it to consumers and cutting you out of the equation. There is no demand for that game. On the OSS side there is often huge demand with no compensation to the developer. I'm not making a judgement on whether that is good or bad, I assume most OSS developers know that is the way it works, but I am saying that it isn't comparable to a bunch of games that have no demand and people are making them for their own satisfaction. I have an OSS project used by 1000s of people and many huge companies. I don't get compensated for that directly and I don't expect to. I'm just happy to be able to use it on my own projects no matter what company I am working with.
sambroner 8y ago
What about college football players, Mid-tier content creators, etc? These are people who are providing a service, potentially because it’s a passion, but other entities soak up the profit. You seem to be arguing that these people (in the grandparent comment and my own) do get paid, but my understanding is that they don’t, or barely do.
- electic 8y ago
  There are lawsuits pending on the issue of college players not getting paid. It is a problem and it is going to get sorted out soon.
- spullara 8y ago
  That is a better analogy imho.
phobosdeimos 8y ago
Thats the deal with open source. Don't like it commercialize and see if you can make it your day job. You'll have to pay programmers too though, no more free work from the community.
jasonlotito 8y ago
Because none of those cases have people giving permission for their work to be used by others to make millions of dollars. If someone gave their work away into the public domain, and then someone used that work to make millions, their shouldn't be an expectation that the other person somehow owes the other money. If you think your code is worth money, sell it. LGPL/GPL/AGPL exist for a reason. Not my fault you used BSD/MIT and didn't consider what you were explicitly allowing and encouraging people to do.
- spullara 8y ago
  Agree 100%.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  > their shouldn't be an expectation that the other person somehow owes the other money. There btw. Also, it would be common decency but we live in an era where if something cannot be enforced in court then you should not be surprised somebody is [not] doing it. Oh well.
  - jasonlotito 8y ago
    By the way.
3x 8y ago
That's the whole point, isn't it? That's a good thing, right? Of course society at large should incentivize and facilitate the creation of open source software, but it seems the alternative you're suggesting (that the people making millions must financially support the original creators) would render the software proprietary.
- spullara 8y ago
  I don't really think that. I just think that the comparison is faulty as there is just no demand for the failed artists work.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  As a matter of fact yes, if I were an OSS creator and people made millions from my work, some basic appreciation would be quite nice actually. If companies X, Y and Z make $10 million a month and this is partially enabled by my software, giving systemic donations in the orders of $10k - $20k a month would only be common sense in my mind. (And I know I would have a "donation budget" if I was a businessman because I am not stupid and I know the work of which people outside my company facilitates my business further.) But appreciation is not what businessmen do. 99% are cut-throats in all areas of their lives.

jondubois 8y ago

That's true. When the concept of open source software was first introduced, it was seen as a desperate way to get users but it was an effective strategy at the time. Today, giving software for free is not enough - I think that the next trend will be to pay people to use your OSS software. Probably with cryptocurrency.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
>When the concept of open source software was first introduced, it was seen as a desperate way to get users but it was an effective strategy at the time This was not the motive for free software's beginning, nor does it describe the beginning of the term "open source." The concept rose out of early computing allowing and sometimes encouraging users to share and improve software, and the true start of the movement envisioned a model similar to Red Hat, where the software is sold though sharing is not restricted. Forcing user payment is effectively impossible for open source software, someone can just buy a copy and redistribute it without the required payment, so your prediction is a movement away from open source software.
- Avamander 8y ago
  Forcing is not possible indeed. But I think this is comparable to the tax system, not everyone contributes equally or as they should but most public utilities still work from those people's contributions who are honest. It's kind-of depressing to think about people trying their best to freeload instead of paying a (symbolic) price, don't you think?
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >It's kind-of depressing to think about people trying their best to freeload instead of paying a (symbolic) price, don't you think? Not particularly. It's depressing to see businesses profitably exploit that work, and irritating to see people develop a sense of entitlement without ever contributing back. Though I wish more general users donated to projects, people using the software without paying seems better than people not using or paying for the software, and far better than paying and being unable to use the software.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago

There is basically an unlimited supply of people that like to write novels, make programming languages, play soccer, or make video games. There is an unlimited supply of people who say they would like to write novels, make programming languages, play soccer [professionally], or make video games. The supply of people who have the drive and patience to complete a novel or programming language or video game for free or on spec is arguably much smaller. The same is also true of open source libraries. There may be an effectively unlimited supply of GitHub repositories containing new JavaScript frameworks and template languages, but the majority of them haven't gotten very far past the README file. And, we haven't even addressed the question of whether they have the skill and talent to make a good novel or programming language or video game or open source library. Having said all that, I think the original article is on point in at least one crucial respect: all of these cited kinds of work require a huge investment of time, and it's very hard to sustain that investment without money. This is why I always get very frustrated with the particular kind of pseudo-libertarian who blithely asserts that artists and writers don't need to be fairly compensated for their work, because clearly they'd keep doing it solely out of the love of creation. In reality, artists and writers--and open source programmers--aren't likely to put in "second job" level hours without compensation indefinitely. They're going to have a family, or develop more relaxing hobbies, or possibly just get frustrated by the ongoing effort. I don't know if "business innovations" can solve this problem, but I think it's worth looking for more ways for developers (and writers and artists and...) to bring in some kind of stable recurring revenue.

wokwokwok 8y ago
I agree that some kind of disruption of this space would be great, to reward creatives. ...but practically how do you do it? The parent comment is quite right, going from 'pay x' to 'pay y' is one thing... but from 'pay nothing' to 'pay anything' is a massive and difficult step. You can't make it mandatory; theres a glut of stuff out there, and people will just move on to the next free (perhaps crappier, but free!) version. 'business innovations may help' is just a nice way of saying 'well darn, nothing we've tried in the last 10 years to fix this has worked... hm. Don't really have a solution for this, but it'd be great if someone figured one out!' ...which I totally agree with, sure, but its not really helpful or practical. Seriously, nothing people have tried (tips, patreon, foundations) has worked very well. No one is going to solve this problem any time soon. Of you're an open source library author/maintainer, you've got to acknowledge you're not just magically get rewarded for your efforts; you have to work for it, and (probably, for most people) your attempts to monetize it will fail. The same is true for all creatives.