4 ms·

Producing Open Source Software (2020)

84 points by zdw 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago
Wow, this is incredibly informative and nicely even-tempered in tone, for those of us not that familiar with the whole history behind the controversies we see expressed in various forums regarding the various licenses, ideologies, etc. This bit in particular resonates: > "Developers had another reason to stick together as well: it turned out that the free software world was producing some very high-quality code. In some cases, it was demonstrably technically superior to the nearest non-free alternative; in others, it was at least comparable, and of course it always cost less to acquire — and you didn't have to worry about the manufacturer going out of business. While only a few people might have been motivated to run free software on strictly philosophical grounds, a great many people were happy to run it because it did a better job." This is very inline with academic thinking on distribution of information: put your research in the public domain with your name on it, transparently, so that everyone can replicate it (or not), and that's how you get rid of the chaff as soon as possible. This also leads to academic appointments and a financially secure career... Sounds like an argument for federally funded software development, really, but would Bill Gates still call that 'communism'? There's another connection: open source seems to suffer from lack of investment in UI/UX, and that appears to be because spending a lot of time on that is viewed as drudgery. Similarly, for other academic researchers the Materials and Methods section of a report is often the most important if they're out to replicate the work, but researchers aren't going to hold your hand and walk you through the fundamentals of experimental design and setup, you're expected to learn that on your own. M & M sections of reports are notorious for being terse and requiring insider knowledge to replicate, kind of like using some open source projects is. I wonder if the foundations and such in the open source world would consider just hiring experts in UI/UX, on a contract basis, to clean up their UI/UX to make it easier for non-techie people to adopt opensource platforms?
ternaryoperator 4y ago
An excellent book that taught me a lot, but it first came out a long time ago. So, I'm very pleased to see it being updated. I will surely buy it and read it anew when it's finalized and printed.
kfogel 4y ago
Nice to see this posted here. I feel obliged to say that the 2nd edition (which is now finally completed) has a number of Kickstarter backers waiting for their treeware, and I'm sorry for the delay in getting that to them. It's the print-run process, much more than the shipping, that turns out to be complicated, somewhat to my surprise, but I am plugging away at it. I am very grateful for those backers' support and have not forgotten. In the meantime, the entire 2nd edition is online in various formats, under a free license of course (CC-BY-SA), at the link OP gave. -Karl Fogel (author)
- nerdyadventurer 4y ago
  I have a question for you. I myself prefer open sourced app for better transparency and maintaining an open source software cost a lot of time, can be called as full time job if the project is big. We are planning to develop a mobile app which is subscription based, but I want to make it open source. Would subscription based open source apps will work? I have not seen any significant size mobile app which subscription based and open sourced. Is this possible? (There are a lot of server side software which are open sourced, where they earn by cloud hosting or enterprise features, but it is different case for mobile apps) We will be planning to develop that app full time, so we are planning to earn a living too as startup.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    It depends on what the subscription is for; if the open source app is just a frontend to pay for, download and display some proprietary data, then it definitely seems feasible to have a subscription setup. If it is just a local-only app, like a game for example; you could make money through subscribing to updates. If any of your customers redistribute your code for free, then other potential customers might use the free version instead. OTOH they might like it is open source, so pay for it or donate, while they would turn away if it were proprietary. Apps like Krita have a setup where you can download the app for free from the website, you can donate on the website or you can download the exact same app via the various app stores for money. That seems like the best option. People who don't want to pay can get it for free and pay by promoting the software through word of mouth. People who want to use app stores can pay. People who have spare cash can donate. https://krita.org/ https://krita.org/
ccbccccbbcccbb 4y ago
OSS: The story of how programmers were duped into yielding their daily bread to managers and helping big corporations grow huge using their software for free in deep disregard to whatever license came attached to it. All hail Stallman & Co and all the brilliant masters of narratives behind them.
- kfogel 4y ago
  "Citation needed" :-). There have been occasional examples of misbehavior and ignoring the license terms of certain FOSS licenses, but by and large almost everyone -- including corporations -- does abide by them. The common licenses are well-written, legally solid, and most lawyers (again, and most importantly, including corporate lawyers) agree they would be enforceable in court. I don't know if you've had a bad experience with releasing free / open source software, and I'm sorry if you have. Many people have seen good results from doing it, and furthermore there's a baseline level of digital freedom now available that is entirely due to people producing such software. The most obvious example, of course, is that you can run a free operating system on your computer and thus not be at the mercy of gigantic tech companies when it comes to privacy, advertising nuisance, non-configurable user interfaces, etc.
- wyldfire 4y ago
  I'm among the many developers of commercial + Open Source software out there. And sometimes I also contribute bugfixes/features to Free Software projects. I'm paid to do it and I enjoy my work and count myself as lucky to be a part of the communities I'm able to work with. It may come as no surprise that I disagree with your characterization of being duped. I'm handsomely rewarded for my work and my resume has never looked better.
- pabs3 4y ago
  It is true that software re-use through FLOSS licensing has definitely lead to a reduced amount of need for each company to reimplement a lot of software, but there is still a ton of work out there for software developers and even a ton of work for paid FLOSS developers in some areas. On the whole I think FLOSS licensing has been a net positive to the amount of paid software development work available, even though there are definitely sustainability issues in FLOSS and not every software developer can get a FLOSS job.

84 points by zdw 4y ago

Wow, this is incredibly informative and nicely even-tempered in tone, for those of us not that familiar with the whole history behind the controversies we see expressed in various forums regarding the various licenses, ideologies, etc. This bit in particular resonates: > "Developers had another reason to stick together as well: it turned out that the free software world was producing some very high-quality code. In some cases, it was demonstrably technically superior to the nearest non-free alternative; in others, it was at least comparable, and of course it always cost less to acquire — and you didn't have to worry about the manufacturer going out of business. While only a few people might have been motivated to run free software on strictly philosophical grounds, a great many people were happy to run it because it did a better job." This is very inline with academic thinking on distribution of information: put your research in the public domain with your name on it, transparently, so that everyone can replicate it (or not), and that's how you get rid of the chaff as soon as possible. This also leads to academic appointments and a financially secure career... Sounds like an argument for federally funded software development, really, but would Bill Gates still call that 'communism'? There's another connection: open source seems to suffer from lack of investment in UI/UX, and that appears to be because spending a lot of time on that is viewed as drudgery. Similarly, for other academic researchers the Materials and Methods section of a report is often the most important if they're out to replicate the work, but researchers aren't going to hold your hand and walk you through the fundamentals of experimental design and setup, you're expected to learn that on your own. M & M sections of reports are notorious for being terse and requiring insider knowledge to replicate, kind of like using some open source projects is. I wonder if the foundations and such in the open source world would consider just hiring experts in UI/UX, on a contract basis, to clean up their UI/UX to make it easier for non-techie people to adopt opensource platforms?

ternaryoperator 4y ago

An excellent book that taught me a lot, but it first came out a long time ago. So, I'm very pleased to see it being updated. I will surely buy it and read it anew when it's finalized and printed.

kfogel 4y ago

Nice to see this posted here. I feel obliged to say that the 2nd edition (which is now finally completed) has a number of Kickstarter backers waiting for their treeware, and I'm sorry for the delay in getting that to them. It's the print-run process, much more than the shipping, that turns out to be complicated, somewhat to my surprise, but I am plugging away at it. I am very grateful for those backers' support and have not forgotten. In the meantime, the entire 2nd edition is online in various formats, under a free license of course (CC-BY-SA), at the link OP gave. -Karl Fogel (author)

nerdyadventurer 4y ago
I have a question for you. I myself prefer open sourced app for better transparency and maintaining an open source software cost a lot of time, can be called as full time job if the project is big. We are planning to develop a mobile app which is subscription based, but I want to make it open source. Would subscription based open source apps will work? I have not seen any significant size mobile app which subscription based and open sourced. Is this possible? (There are a lot of server side software which are open sourced, where they earn by cloud hosting or enterprise features, but it is different case for mobile apps) We will be planning to develop that app full time, so we are planning to earn a living too as startup.
- pabs3 4y ago
  It depends on what the subscription is for; if the open source app is just a frontend to pay for, download and display some proprietary data, then it definitely seems feasible to have a subscription setup. If it is just a local-only app, like a game for example; you could make money through subscribing to updates. If any of your customers redistribute your code for free, then other potential customers might use the free version instead. OTOH they might like it is open source, so pay for it or donate, while they would turn away if it were proprietary. Apps like Krita have a setup where you can download the app for free from the website, you can donate on the website or you can download the exact same app via the various app stores for money. That seems like the best option. People who don't want to pay can get it for free and pay by promoting the software through word of mouth. People who want to use app stores can pay. People who have spare cash can donate. https://krita.org/ https://krita.org/

ccbccccbbcccbb 4y ago

OSS: The story of how programmers were duped into yielding their daily bread to managers and helping big corporations grow huge using their software for free in deep disregard to whatever license came attached to it. All hail Stallman & Co and all the brilliant masters of narratives behind them.

kfogel 4y ago
"Citation needed" :-). There have been occasional examples of misbehavior and ignoring the license terms of certain FOSS licenses, but by and large almost everyone -- including corporations -- does abide by them. The common licenses are well-written, legally solid, and most lawyers (again, and most importantly, including corporate lawyers) agree they would be enforceable in court. I don't know if you've had a bad experience with releasing free / open source software, and I'm sorry if you have. Many people have seen good results from doing it, and furthermore there's a baseline level of digital freedom now available that is entirely due to people producing such software. The most obvious example, of course, is that you can run a free operating system on your computer and thus not be at the mercy of gigantic tech companies when it comes to privacy, advertising nuisance, non-configurable user interfaces, etc.
wyldfire 4y ago
I'm among the many developers of commercial + Open Source software out there. And sometimes I also contribute bugfixes/features to Free Software projects. I'm paid to do it and I enjoy my work and count myself as lucky to be a part of the communities I'm able to work with. It may come as no surprise that I disagree with your characterization of being duped. I'm handsomely rewarded for my work and my resume has never looked better.
pabs3 4y ago
It is true that software re-use through FLOSS licensing has definitely lead to a reduced amount of need for each company to reimplement a lot of software, but there is still a ton of work out there for software developers and even a ton of work for paid FLOSS developers in some areas. On the whole I think FLOSS licensing has been a net positive to the amount of paid software development work available, even though there are definitely sustainability issues in FLOSS and not every software developer can get a FLOSS job.