5 ms·

20 years ago, when I described open source software to a lawyer, I got that exact same question. I told him, well, you can sue the developer I suppose, but he d

20 years ago, when I described open source software to a lawyer, I got that exact same question. I told him, well, you can sue the developer I suppose, but he doesn't have very much money. The lawyer responded "well, I don't feel comfortable using software where there is no accountability". Looking back, this seems like a silly argument that most people don't follow in any meaningful way in this day and age. In the end, people will use whatever software has a good reputation. If something bad happens, well it's on them. The sky didn't fall using this model.

Darkstryder 7y ago
One could argue that 20 years ago there was little to no reputation (good or bad) for most open-source software, and that made using open-source software much more dangerous : it was more difficult to separate the good apples from the bad ones. Therefore his criticism made sense at the time. While open-source code and open-source maintainers are critical parts of the ecosystem, I think open source users are underrated. If nobody shared their experience about how a piece of open-source software is actually behaving once you put it to use in production, open-source software would have much less value than it currently has.
- steveeq1 7y ago
  No, open source has been a "thing" for quite some time even in 1998. No, the guy just didn't get it. He asked questions like who do you sue if something goes wrong. . . where is the market incentive to create software if there is no strong intellectual property rights. . . what if someone steals the code and makes a million dollars. . . What if the original author dies starving while some rich corporation takes advantage? I mean, really silly arguments when you look back. I told him that most of the software using this model is simply more reliable than proprietary software, but he just didn't get it. There was already plenty of "reputation" even back then, he just wasn't a hacker and couldn't understand any other perspective other than his own.
  - eropple 7y ago
    > What if the original author dies starving while some rich corporation takes advantage? I mean, really silly arguments when you look back. The evolution of open source software in the twenty years hence suggests that this particular question is not as silly as you frame it.
    - steveeq1 7y ago
      No, open source software has been a regular thing since the 1980's and arguably with 1970's with richard stallman. It was already 20 years old by the time I was explaining it to the lawyer. He was just unable to understand anything that wasn't part of his paradigm.
      - eropple 7y ago
        Being "a regular thing" and being "a thing that enriches companies off the backs of community-minded software developers" are not concepts in conflict.
  - Darkstryder 7y ago
    "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." You're right that open source had been a thing for quite some time in 1998. GNU was started in 1983 after all. But I respectfully disagree that open source was "obvious" in 1998. Hell, at that time, one could argue it was not obvious for a lot of people how much the Internet and computers would alter our lives. Open source was the least obvious part of quite a few a mind-bending paradigm shifts.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Open source was very obvious in 1998 for competent tech companies. As in look at successful companies in 2005 and most of them where using OS software in 1998. One of PG’s essays has a line like, ‘any competitor using Oracle was easy to ignore.’ Successful OS software needs to be good enough not to need marketing and happens to be free. It might not be the best, but cheap and good enough generally has a lot going for it.
middleload 7y ago
I'd argue that the same is true today. No big org is using pure OSS. They have big contracts with Redhat and the likes and they like to pretend that they're covered.
- nradov 7y ago
  It's not just pretend. If the big org finds a defect and opens a support ticket, Red Hat will actually fix it.
  - tremon 7y ago
    Yet if the big org loses money due to said defect, the supplier will not reimburse that. No matter if it's Red Hat, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, or Google.
- bluGill 7y ago
  You always pay for all software in time. Someone needs to install the software in your company. Someone needs to answer support calls. If you pay RedHat when your people can't figure it out they can turn to someone else - a specialist (You hope: Redhat has a good reputation but there is always risk it is just someone else who knows less than you and will take more of your time understanding the problem than to just figure it out yourself.) My CEO could do my job. He would need an additional degree in programming, and even more time in a day. He hires me because telling my bosses bosses (skip several levels) boss to get something done will go down the chain into figuring it out how to go from we need to grow market share in the area I'm working to actual code that will grow that market share. This across thousands of employees - the CEO could learn to do any one but he can't do all of them.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  "No big org is using pure OSS" On the contrary every big org is using OSS. OSS is in everything. That there is 'nobody to sue' is besides the point, it's like suing the inventor of the fork because something happened with a fork. If you bought something complicated from someone with a contract and you depend on it doing ABC and it doesn't, then there's a case of liability. But tons of software is OSS and there's nobody to sue. 'Liability' in software is maybe important in some areas, but mostly it's not.
jnty 7y ago
This is wrong on a higher level too as most commercial software will disclaim all liability for the correct operation of their software unless you pay them lots of money for a support contract. Turns this is just as viable a business model for OSS too, as Redhat and others found out.
hinkley 7y ago
Society is full of algorithms that have a good reputation that they don't deserve. Most of our problems as a society are due to that gap.

Darkstryder 7y ago

One could argue that 20 years ago there was little to no reputation (good or bad) for most open-source software, and that made using open-source software much more dangerous : it was more difficult to separate the good apples from the bad ones. Therefore his criticism made sense at the time. While open-source code and open-source maintainers are critical parts of the ecosystem, I think open source users are underrated. If nobody shared their experience about how a piece of open-source software is actually behaving once you put it to use in production, open-source software would have much less value than it currently has.

steveeq1 7y ago
No, open source has been a "thing" for quite some time even in 1998. No, the guy just didn't get it. He asked questions like who do you sue if something goes wrong. . . where is the market incentive to create software if there is no strong intellectual property rights. . . what if someone steals the code and makes a million dollars. . . What if the original author dies starving while some rich corporation takes advantage? I mean, really silly arguments when you look back. I told him that most of the software using this model is simply more reliable than proprietary software, but he just didn't get it. There was already plenty of "reputation" even back then, he just wasn't a hacker and couldn't understand any other perspective other than his own.
- eropple 7y ago
  > What if the original author dies starving while some rich corporation takes advantage? I mean, really silly arguments when you look back. The evolution of open source software in the twenty years hence suggests that this particular question is not as silly as you frame it.
  - steveeq1 7y ago
    No, open source software has been a regular thing since the 1980's and arguably with 1970's with richard stallman. It was already 20 years old by the time I was explaining it to the lawyer. He was just unable to understand anything that wasn't part of his paradigm.
    - eropple 7y ago
      Being "a regular thing" and being "a thing that enriches companies off the backs of community-minded software developers" are not concepts in conflict.
- Darkstryder 7y ago
  "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." You're right that open source had been a thing for quite some time in 1998. GNU was started in 1983 after all. But I respectfully disagree that open source was "obvious" in 1998. Hell, at that time, one could argue it was not obvious for a lot of people how much the Internet and computers would alter our lives. Open source was the least obvious part of quite a few a mind-bending paradigm shifts.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Open source was very obvious in 1998 for competent tech companies. As in look at successful companies in 2005 and most of them where using OS software in 1998. One of PG’s essays has a line like, ‘any competitor using Oracle was easy to ignore.’ Successful OS software needs to be good enough not to need marketing and happens to be free. It might not be the best, but cheap and good enough generally has a lot going for it.

middleload 7y ago

I'd argue that the same is true today. No big org is using pure OSS. They have big contracts with Redhat and the likes and they like to pretend that they're covered.

nradov 7y ago
It's not just pretend. If the big org finds a defect and opens a support ticket, Red Hat will actually fix it.
- tremon 7y ago
  Yet if the big org loses money due to said defect, the supplier will not reimburse that. No matter if it's Red Hat, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, or Google.
bluGill 7y ago
You always pay for all software in time. Someone needs to install the software in your company. Someone needs to answer support calls. If you pay RedHat when your people can't figure it out they can turn to someone else - a specialist (You hope: Redhat has a good reputation but there is always risk it is just someone else who knows less than you and will take more of your time understanding the problem than to just figure it out yourself.) My CEO could do my job. He would need an additional degree in programming, and even more time in a day. He hires me because telling my bosses bosses (skip several levels) boss to get something done will go down the chain into figuring it out how to go from we need to grow market share in the area I'm working to actual code that will grow that market share. This across thousands of employees - the CEO could learn to do any one but he can't do all of them.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
"No big org is using pure OSS" On the contrary every big org is using OSS. OSS is in everything. That there is 'nobody to sue' is besides the point, it's like suing the inventor of the fork because something happened with a fork. If you bought something complicated from someone with a contract and you depend on it doing ABC and it doesn't, then there's a case of liability. But tons of software is OSS and there's nobody to sue. 'Liability' in software is maybe important in some areas, but mostly it's not.

jnty 7y ago

This is wrong on a higher level too as most commercial software will disclaim all liability for the correct operation of their software unless you pay them lots of money for a support contract. Turns this is just as viable a business model for OSS too, as Redhat and others found out.

hinkley 7y ago

Society is full of algorithms that have a good reputation that they don't deserve. Most of our problems as a society are due to that gap.