2 ms·

Serious question: How are software developers supposed to put a roof over their head and food on the table if software can't be privatized? We can't all be empl

by lapcat 3y ago

Serious question: How are software developers supposed to put a roof over their head and food on the table if software can't be privatized? We can't all be employed by academia or rely on charitable donations. The worst scenario would be if all software becomes "free" but funded by advertising. If you're not the customer, you're the product. The author rails against capitalist businesses, but what exactly is the author's proposed alternative? Are we going to have a Free Houses Foundation and a Free Furniture Foundation? It feels to me that the FSF take software labor completely for granted, as if it just grows on trees. Is every consumer good supposed to come with instructions for exactly reproducing it? That's a recipe for theft and getting uncut by lazy competition.

brookst 3y ago
All business is about value created, not expenses incurred. And houses and furniture have marginal costs, where software does not. How does Linus Torvalds make money when Linux is free? How do commercial Linux or MySQL or Apache companies make money when their IP is free? It turns out that writing code is the least valuable thing a developer does. Which is a good thing since "turn spec into code" is a job function that will be taken over my AI in... (Checks watch) I'm fully supportive of close source, but I think it's pretty clear that successful businesses can employ lots of people usi g either model, and also that the greatest threat to code mill developers is not open source.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > All business is about value created, not expenses incurred. Yes and no. Profit is revenue minus expenses. But you have to pay the expenses no matter what. Revenue and profit don't just magically appear. > And houses and furniture have marginal costs, where software does not. This seems to demonstrate what I said about taking software labor for granted. Producing software to operate at scale is actually quite difficult and requires a ton of labor. > How does Linus Torvalds make money when Linux is free? Good question. I don't even know. But the real question isn't how a few famous individuals like Torvalds and Stallman make a living. The question is how millions of non-famous individuals can make a living under this "funding model", whatever that happens to be. > it's pretty clear that successful businesses can employ lots of people usi[n]g either model Define "lots of people", and compare how many people are employed by open source companies vs. how many are employed by closed source companies. [EDIT:] I suspect the answer to the question of Linux funding is corporate donors. Which would be pretty ironic, given the anti-capitalist argument here, don't you think? It's just like how Mozilla is funded in large part by Google search revenue.
- jen20 3y ago
  > Which is a good thing since "turn spec into code" is a job function that will be taken over my AI in... (Checks watch) You realize that if your prediction comes to bear, that the job of writing code would become much more difficult: writing specs in an imprecise natural language instead of a precise computer language? Try reading anything written by a contract lawyer for why this is not an improved state of affairs.
- chx 3y ago
  > How does Linus Torvalds make money when Linux is free? Linux is so big there's a thriving Linux Foundation. This is rare. > How do commercial Linux or MySQL or Apache companies make money when their IP is free? support but again this requires an absolutely massive installed size because only a tiny percentage will pay.
jrochkind1 3y ago
Many software developers work for places where selling the software is not how they make money. Another big example would be "enterprise". You are paid to solve problems for the organization. If the code you write to solve those problems is open source (and you use other open source code to help solve them too) it doesn't really conflict with the ability of the organization to pay your salary.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Many software developers work for places where selling the software is not how they make money. But many software developers do work for places where selling the software, or selling products that include the software, is how they make money. The question isn't whether some companies can make money from software without selling it. Yes, of course. The question is whether outlawing the selling of software would put a lot of companies out of business, and again, the answer is yes, of course. > If the code you write to solve those problems is open source (and you use other open source code to help solve them too) it doesn't really conflict with the ability of the organization to pay your salary. I'm not sure it doesn't conflict. Either the software is specific to the organization, in which case it's mostly pointless to open source it, or the software can be used by multiple organizations, and if so, then you may end up losing many or most of your potential customers if you give your software away for free to organizations who aren't already employing you. The larger issue is, you're still assuming capitalist businesses exist. Why are we singling out software as having to be free in a capitalist economy? This is why I asked about a Free Houses Foundation and a Free Furniture Foundation. If the author wants an alternative to capitalism, it doesn't make sense to talk specifically about software and only software. Software is only one small part of the overall economy. I don't see why software developers have to "unilaterally disarm", as if were.
  - jrochkind1 3y ago
    I don't know that anyone, including RMS, is suggesting outlawing selling software. But some, including RMS, are suggesting all open source software as an ideal and goal and possibility for a realistic society. How we get there is a different question; I think RMS would suggest as a voluntary political movement -- of people and organizations choosing to product open source software and boycott non-open source software. Have you seen free software advocates suggest outlawing non-free software and if so where? Anyway, I was replying to someone saying -- but how could programmers have jobs, if all software was open source? we can't all work in academia. So I think it's clear there could be lots and lots of programmer jobs even if all software were open source, and not just in academia. I'm not sure you're following my "enterprise" example. There might be a company that produces Widgets, and sells Widgets, but they have developers in-house to produce software that helps them make widgets. There are lots of such in-house programmers. Now, many companies might say -- but we don't want you to share that software, what if our widget-making competitors got a hold of it, they could compete with us better! I think we developers know it doesn't really work like that -- the software can almost never be used as-is, the other company will always need it's own developers to adapt it. But that also doesn't mean it's useless, parts of it may be useful -- including by those in other industries. But either way, the issue isn't "losing potential companies", it's the worry that it will make us less competitive if we share the "special sauce". But it seldom works that way. But sure, some companies business models depend on proprietary software. It's clear the ecnonomy/market woudln't work exactly the same. Perhaps software engineers could no longer count on 99th percentile compensation (although I'm not even sure of that), but that's different than saying it's incompatible with software engineers getting paid, on a wide scale. I do agree that we should be talking about free houses and free furniture, sure -- but the difference in software is that it can be copied infinitely at no cost. If I produce a chair, if you take my chair i don't have it anymore. If I produce sofware, literally everyone can have it at once, without having to manufacture extra copies at significant prices that must be paid by someone. That's why it's different than houses or chairs. I'm interested in non-capitalist houses and chairs too, but there's no reason we can't discuss free and open source software -- which after all already exists and is a major existing thing in the software ecology -- until we've solved free chairs and houses too.
modo_mario 3y ago
>How are software developers supposed to put a roof over their head and food on the table if software can't be privatized? If an plumber or electrician smartly comes up with a certain configuration or the like how is it that he still makes money when someone else can come in to learn from it? When someone completely unrelated can come in to fix it when it breaks? When someone completely unrelated can copy it even? I'd say overly restrictive copyright has not protected innovation but hampered it. It potentially says do not build, iterate, improve on such things for way too long in way too many ways. As a software developer I have benefited plenty from this. I've also probably lost out a lot due to it in the countless little interactions and price calculations that make up our life. From paying a bit more for an engineered intel/amd duopoly and licensing for some standards extended into perpetuity here and there when making a new pc to paying that extra nth of a cent for a carefully engineered bank transaction system meant to protect Worldline or the like despite carefully limited regulatory efforts to the contrary.
- lapcat 3y ago
  I think you're conflating a number of different things that are distinct: 1) Copyright 2) Reverse engineering 3) Patents 4) DRM 5) EULA Reverse engineering is legal. Copyright doesn't prohibit reverse engineering. But reverse engineering is also usually very difficult. There's no law that says you have to make it easy for someone to reverse engineer your product, nor should there be IMO. The current patent system is crazy. Too many simple, overly broad patents granted by a patent office that doesn't even truly understand what they're looking at. I would definitely reform or abolish that system. IMO the main problem today with anti-consumer products is not copyright but rather DRM. When the seller locks down the product and prevents the consumer from using the product as they please after they pay for the product and bring it home. DRM has a legitimate use to protect theft, but DRM has gone too far: it's not used just to prevent theft but also to control. The solution to this problem is not "free software" but rather protecting consumer legal rights.
linguae 3y ago
Depending on the domain, this can be quite challenging, and the challenge isn't limited to FOSS. The non-business consumer market, particularly the desktop computer software market, is probably the most challenging when it comes to monetizing software. Even in the world of proprietary software, software companies still have to compete with pirated copies. This led to the introduction of activation, DRM, app stores, and subscriptions. Moreover, even without piracy, there's an abundance of free-as-in-beer software products that are either ad-funded or are subsidized by revenue from other parts of the business. I imagine that the people working on essential FOSS desktop projects like KDE, GNOME, GIMP, LibreOffice, Inkscape, etc. most likely don't make a full-time living working on these projects unless they're sponsored by a larger company like Red Hat or Google which makes its money from other projects. If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear counterexamples. Of course, not all software is pre-packaged desktop and server software like Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft SQL Server. Making money from FOSS may be easier in B2B markets where companies tend to not sell prepackaged software solutions, but custom solutions that fit the customer's needs. Even with FOSS, just because the software can be downloaded and modified freely doesn't mean that the software is ready to use immediately. This may require modifying the code, which may be beyond what many business could handle. They could choose to hire their own in-house software engineers, but they could also choose to pay the software company, whose engineers should be more familiar with the code base. This is where I see more opportunities for making a living with FOSS, since not all software products are straight-out-of-the-box solutions.
zelphirkalt 3y ago
> Serious question: How are software developers supposed to put a roof over their head and food on the table if software can't be privatized? We can't all be employed by academia or rely on charitable donations. The worst scenario would be if all software becomes "free" but funded by advertising. If you're not the customer, you're the product. Are you asking, what Stallman thinks about this, or are you asking for more ideas from people here? I believe Stallman said in some interview, that there would probably be fewer developers, but they would work on free software and services attached to free software, like support, setup, maintenance, customizations, and whatnot.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Are you asking, what Stallman thinks about this No. However... > I believe Stallman said in some interview, that there would probably be fewer developers It's crucial to emphasize this in debates about "free" software. I think there would probably be a lot fewer developers. Stallman appears to be advocating for a decimation of the industry. And I don't think this would help users, because a lot less software would exist.

by lapcat 3y ago

brookst 3y ago

All business is about value created, not expenses incurred. And houses and furniture have marginal costs, where software does not. How does Linus Torvalds make money when Linux is free? How do commercial Linux or MySQL or Apache companies make money when their IP is free? It turns out that writing code is the least valuable thing a developer does. Which is a good thing since "turn spec into code" is a job function that will be taken over my AI in... (Checks watch) I'm fully supportive of close source, but I think it's pretty clear that successful businesses can employ lots of people usi g either model, and also that the greatest threat to code mill developers is not open source.

lapcat 3y ago
> All business is about value created, not expenses incurred. Yes and no. Profit is revenue minus expenses. But you have to pay the expenses no matter what. Revenue and profit don't just magically appear. > And houses and furniture have marginal costs, where software does not. This seems to demonstrate what I said about taking software labor for granted. Producing software to operate at scale is actually quite difficult and requires a ton of labor. > How does Linus Torvalds make money when Linux is free? Good question. I don't even know. But the real question isn't how a few famous individuals like Torvalds and Stallman make a living. The question is how millions of non-famous individuals can make a living under this "funding model", whatever that happens to be. > it's pretty clear that successful businesses can employ lots of people usi[n]g either model Define "lots of people", and compare how many people are employed by open source companies vs. how many are employed by closed source companies. [EDIT:] I suspect the answer to the question of Linux funding is corporate donors. Which would be pretty ironic, given the anti-capitalist argument here, don't you think? It's just like how Mozilla is funded in large part by Google search revenue.
jen20 3y ago
> Which is a good thing since "turn spec into code" is a job function that will be taken over my AI in... (Checks watch) You realize that if your prediction comes to bear, that the job of writing code would become much more difficult: writing specs in an imprecise natural language instead of a precise computer language? Try reading anything written by a contract lawyer for why this is not an improved state of affairs.
chx 3y ago
> How does Linus Torvalds make money when Linux is free? Linux is so big there's a thriving Linux Foundation. This is rare. > How do commercial Linux or MySQL or Apache companies make money when their IP is free? support but again this requires an absolutely massive installed size because only a tiny percentage will pay.

jrochkind1 3y ago

Many software developers work for places where selling the software is not how they make money. Another big example would be "enterprise". You are paid to solve problems for the organization. If the code you write to solve those problems is open source (and you use other open source code to help solve them too) it doesn't really conflict with the ability of the organization to pay your salary.

lapcat 3y ago
> Many software developers work for places where selling the software is not how they make money. But many software developers do work for places where selling the software, or selling products that include the software, is how they make money. The question isn't whether some companies can make money from software without selling it. Yes, of course. The question is whether outlawing the selling of software would put a lot of companies out of business, and again, the answer is yes, of course. > If the code you write to solve those problems is open source (and you use other open source code to help solve them too) it doesn't really conflict with the ability of the organization to pay your salary. I'm not sure it doesn't conflict. Either the software is specific to the organization, in which case it's mostly pointless to open source it, or the software can be used by multiple organizations, and if so, then you may end up losing many or most of your potential customers if you give your software away for free to organizations who aren't already employing you. The larger issue is, you're still assuming capitalist businesses exist. Why are we singling out software as having to be free in a capitalist economy? This is why I asked about a Free Houses Foundation and a Free Furniture Foundation. If the author wants an alternative to capitalism, it doesn't make sense to talk specifically about software and only software. Software is only one small part of the overall economy. I don't see why software developers have to "unilaterally disarm", as if were.
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  I don't know that anyone, including RMS, is suggesting outlawing selling software. But some, including RMS, are suggesting all open source software as an ideal and goal and possibility for a realistic society. How we get there is a different question; I think RMS would suggest as a voluntary political movement -- of people and organizations choosing to product open source software and boycott non-open source software. Have you seen free software advocates suggest outlawing non-free software and if so where? Anyway, I was replying to someone saying -- but how could programmers have jobs, if all software was open source? we can't all work in academia. So I think it's clear there could be lots and lots of programmer jobs even if all software were open source, and not just in academia. I'm not sure you're following my "enterprise" example. There might be a company that produces Widgets, and sells Widgets, but they have developers in-house to produce software that helps them make widgets. There are lots of such in-house programmers. Now, many companies might say -- but we don't want you to share that software, what if our widget-making competitors got a hold of it, they could compete with us better! I think we developers know it doesn't really work like that -- the software can almost never be used as-is, the other company will always need it's own developers to adapt it. But that also doesn't mean it's useless, parts of it may be useful -- including by those in other industries. But either way, the issue isn't "losing potential companies", it's the worry that it will make us less competitive if we share the "special sauce". But it seldom works that way. But sure, some companies business models depend on proprietary software. It's clear the ecnonomy/market woudln't work exactly the same. Perhaps software engineers could no longer count on 99th percentile compensation (although I'm not even sure of that), but that's different than saying it's incompatible with software engineers getting paid, on a wide scale. I do agree that we should be talking about free houses and free furniture, sure -- but the difference in software is that it can be copied infinitely at no cost. If I produce a chair, if you take my chair i don't have it anymore. If I produce sofware, literally everyone can have it at once, without having to manufacture extra copies at significant prices that must be paid by someone. That's why it's different than houses or chairs. I'm interested in non-capitalist houses and chairs too, but there's no reason we can't discuss free and open source software -- which after all already exists and is a major existing thing in the software ecology -- until we've solved free chairs and houses too.

modo_mario 3y ago

>How are software developers supposed to put a roof over their head and food on the table if software can't be privatized? If an plumber or electrician smartly comes up with a certain configuration or the like how is it that he still makes money when someone else can come in to learn from it? When someone completely unrelated can come in to fix it when it breaks? When someone completely unrelated can copy it even? I'd say overly restrictive copyright has not protected innovation but hampered it. It potentially says do not build, iterate, improve on such things for way too long in way too many ways. As a software developer I have benefited plenty from this. I've also probably lost out a lot due to it in the countless little interactions and price calculations that make up our life. From paying a bit more for an engineered intel/amd duopoly and licensing for some standards extended into perpetuity here and there when making a new pc to paying that extra nth of a cent for a carefully engineered bank transaction system meant to protect Worldline or the like despite carefully limited regulatory efforts to the contrary.

lapcat 3y ago
I think you're conflating a number of different things that are distinct: 1) Copyright 2) Reverse engineering 3) Patents 4) DRM 5) EULA Reverse engineering is legal. Copyright doesn't prohibit reverse engineering. But reverse engineering is also usually very difficult. There's no law that says you have to make it easy for someone to reverse engineer your product, nor should there be IMO. The current patent system is crazy. Too many simple, overly broad patents granted by a patent office that doesn't even truly understand what they're looking at. I would definitely reform or abolish that system. IMO the main problem today with anti-consumer products is not copyright but rather DRM. When the seller locks down the product and prevents the consumer from using the product as they please after they pay for the product and bring it home. DRM has a legitimate use to protect theft, but DRM has gone too far: it's not used just to prevent theft but also to control. The solution to this problem is not "free software" but rather protecting consumer legal rights.

linguae 3y ago

Depending on the domain, this can be quite challenging, and the challenge isn't limited to FOSS. The non-business consumer market, particularly the desktop computer software market, is probably the most challenging when it comes to monetizing software. Even in the world of proprietary software, software companies still have to compete with pirated copies. This led to the introduction of activation, DRM, app stores, and subscriptions. Moreover, even without piracy, there's an abundance of free-as-in-beer software products that are either ad-funded or are subsidized by revenue from other parts of the business. I imagine that the people working on essential FOSS desktop projects like KDE, GNOME, GIMP, LibreOffice, Inkscape, etc. most likely don't make a full-time living working on these projects unless they're sponsored by a larger company like Red Hat or Google which makes its money from other projects. If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear counterexamples. Of course, not all software is pre-packaged desktop and server software like Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft SQL Server. Making money from FOSS may be easier in B2B markets where companies tend to not sell prepackaged software solutions, but custom solutions that fit the customer's needs. Even with FOSS, just because the software can be downloaded and modified freely doesn't mean that the software is ready to use immediately. This may require modifying the code, which may be beyond what many business could handle. They could choose to hire their own in-house software engineers, but they could also choose to pay the software company, whose engineers should be more familiar with the code base. This is where I see more opportunities for making a living with FOSS, since not all software products are straight-out-of-the-box solutions.

zelphirkalt 3y ago

> Serious question: How are software developers supposed to put a roof over their head and food on the table if software can't be privatized? We can't all be employed by academia or rely on charitable donations. The worst scenario would be if all software becomes "free" but funded by advertising. If you're not the customer, you're the product. Are you asking, what Stallman thinks about this, or are you asking for more ideas from people here? I believe Stallman said in some interview, that there would probably be fewer developers, but they would work on free software and services attached to free software, like support, setup, maintenance, customizations, and whatnot.

lapcat 3y ago
> Are you asking, what Stallman thinks about this No. However... > I believe Stallman said in some interview, that there would probably be fewer developers It's crucial to emphasize this in debates about "free" software. I think there would probably be a lot fewer developers. Stallman appears to be advocating for a decimation of the industry. And I don't think this would help users, because a lot less software would exist.