4 ms·
> The reason these npm-type packages can't charge is that they're extremely fungible. I'd say it's less that they're highly substitutable (which I was I think
by jacques_chester 6y ago
> The reason these npm-type packages can't charge is that they're extremely fungible.
I'd say it's less that they're highly substitutable (which I was I think you mean, instead of fungible) and more that they are non-excludable goods. A seller has no way to exclude a buyer from consuming opensource; that is in fact part of the definition. But without excludability, there's no incentive for a buyer to buy, other than charitable feeling. Put another way, it's a textbook example of the free-rider problem or collective action problem.
These are usually solved either with compulsion, such as taxes, subsidy or command-and-control; or they are solved by benefaction. Benefaction is what we have, as a rule. It's like how a rich patron of the arts donates to an opera company without capturing all of the subsequent value the opera creates (most is captured by the rest of the audience). Very large portions of OSS is developed by fulltime professionals whose time is essentially being given away without any meaningful way to exclude non-payers.
The other means is bundling. Mix the non-excludable part with an excludable part, such as a services contract. But OSS can always be unbundled from services or packaging . In my experience, most unbundlers radically discount the cost of doing so.
- smichel17 6y ago> non-excludable I think the term you're looking for is "public goods", which combines non-rivalrous and the author chooses not to exclude people through legal means. Running out of time to comment before I need to get to work so I'll just link our economics page here: https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/economics https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/economics
- jacques_chester 6y agoYes, but with a twist. OSS in itself behaves like a public good, but most business models for OSS and closed-source software revolve around bundling to create excludability (since software is de facto non-rivalrous). That makes them club goods. The most effective excludability is SaaS offerings, because total exclusion can be enforced easily. That's why hyperscalers make far more from OSS than companies devoted to it. (btw: the snowdrift docs are really impressive, kudos)
- quadrangle 6y agoPublic-goods are non-rivalrous and non-exclusive. It doesn't matter why they might be exclusive. If it's through technical means like DRM (even absent legal support for it) or (blurry, admittedly) needing an exclusive tool such an Open Source plugin for Photoshop, then it's not really a public good. The latter case is arguably a public-good within the "public" of Photoshop-users.