3 ms·
The essential problem is gatekeeping. Any commercial business uses money as a means of getkeeping what it uses (buys). This works well to reduce and so contro
by lifeisstillgood 6y ago
The essential problem is gatekeeping. Any commercial business uses money as a means of getkeeping what it uses (buys). This works well to reduce and so control the purchases of chairs, desks, external consultancies and proprietary software.
We all know the horrors and pain of trying to raise a PO to get a license for a really useful / necessary piece of software.
I fundamentally guarantee that if React needed a 0.01 cent license for every internal and external installation it would have four users globally.
FOSS short circuits this gatekeeping function - and it is only popular because it is hard to keep track of and easy to load up npm and grab 900 libraries.
Imagine there was a FOSS plug-in everyone used, call it mothership that on every install (and indeed invocation) it routed back a simple packet to say "i am alive and used on this machine in this domain in this company" (let's call it a common piece of config like git email config)
Immediately every legal department would soil their pants and internal software development would grind to a halt - or FOSS developers would be able to charge decent value for their work - or some ecosystem of foss-aggregators would spring up providing licensed, limited installs and support and legal protection.
Personally I am in favour of the last option - for each product a series of (local) companies could club together and provide support for each other's code bases, (if you use my react-foobar I will license company X to indemnify you - sort of approved vendors schemes)
I struggle to see many better ways
Edit:
Andressen was slightly wrong - FOSS is going to eat the world. And as such it's production will be a public good - paid for out of taxpayer money and directed as such - either as a utility through regulation or as science through funding only the brightest.
And the big question remains - if we could see the whole stack easily, and if it all was priced at the minimum wage for every developer in the stack how much would it be?
Would anyone pay it? Or worse, would they realise they did not need all those in-house developers anymore as they are all running "libBusiness.py" and it all kind of fits together.
Or as is more likely - will we see lots of companies like redhat, that produce a "bank/airline/retailer in a box" - and the internal teams are focused on that 5% of USP?
I am not sure I understand that world - but I also do not think I currently could select correctly all the FOSS packages needed to build that stack that can just run a business.
Trust me it does not look like the openERP style stacks. at all.
- mooreds 6y ago>FOSS short circuits this gatekeeping function There are other ways past gatekeeping: * free trials * money back guarantees * free as in beer solutions Open source goes one step further than those and says "you don't just get to use this, you get to own it" where "own" means change as you like.
- lifeisstillgood 6y agotwo of those are either need a purchase order upfront, or in 30 days (which is waaay shorter than the time it takes to actually raise a PO!) and ... who gives free as in beer but not open source software? I mean winzip is all that comes to mind? But it does not change the essence - only FOSS gives you software "forever" whilst jumping over the otherwise immutable accounting department t - it is probably the greatest hack no one sees.
- mooreds 6y agoI think OSS is a tremendous distribution hack; no argument there. The issue arises when the developers want to get paid so they can eat/pay their mortgage. Yes, sure, you've jumped past the PO process and your software is popular. But now you have to crawl back into it so you can get paid. And the best ways to get paid are laid out pretty well in the original post: * consulting * hosting * open core and are all problematic for different reasons.
- lifeisstillgood 6y agoI would like to expand on this McDonalds has a operating manual - it details exactly how to cook the burgers, how to operate the trash compactor, insurances etc etc. It is how to run a fast food restaurant and it is I am sure proprietary information. But if they published it under creative commons they would probably not lose a fortune. Firstly there is already completion in the market - plenty of small one person late night takeaways exist - all of whom have some level of floor quality enforced by regulation, taught by suppliers or simply being fairly obvious. The mcdonald's effect comes partly from consistency yes, but also supply chain efficiencies and huge marketing costs. So do we ask, is a Software house that chooses to release FOSS or not actually Mcdonaldds - or are they the department inside mcdonald's that just writes policy operations manuals? A small team of developers will find it hard to just write code and make a fortune / business / change the world. which i find infinitely sad now. But at least i should be wiser.