Comment Rational reason for Open source (Score 1) 596
We know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.Romantics who believe that open-source programmers will do it out of love of programming are naive.Look at teachers.True we always hear that money isnt the only factor that people teach but the reality is that when we look at the overall picture it shows we can only depend on the hugs-and kisses so much.To think that somehow programmers will be different is just silly.
The place where open source will work is when firms realise that it is in their best of interests to fund it. For example: Firm X needs some custom software to solve problem . It hires programmers to do a custom job instead of trying to customize off-the-shelf programs.Once this is done the company now owns the code. It can now do 2 things.Keep the sourcecode inhouse or release it.Say the company releases the code to the public with the restriction that other users must release the source if they change it.Now while company X makes no money doing so, it also doesnt lose money doing so either since the code is already in place. However the opportunity cost differs.Releaseing the code makes it possible that it can reap benefits from improvements it didnt pay for.Not releaseing the code makes this impossible. Releasing the code increses the likelyhood that more people will be familar with it workings, thus makeing it easier to hire people to modify it in the future. Not releasing the code means that the company X is either bound the the original team that worte it or have to have a large staff of inhouse programmers to maintain the code.There lies one example where there are economic reasons for firms to pay to have software written and then to release it. It also answers the question of who pays the programmer.
Make no mistake.This does not mean that only opensource will survive. What it means is that instead of large numbers of programmers working for "non-techie" industries like manufacturing,banking etc, they will be working for smaller software comapnies that help build customize software. Instead of just a handfull of large firms dominating say backend software or databases, there will be more midsize companies doing custom jobs.
Software that attempts to be everything for everyone will find it hard to survive as things become more complicated.Tailor-made solutions are more likely to appeal to firms. So long as there are no legal issues involved like companies being sued for code they release due to defects there isnt much compelling reason not to release the source code. That being said I think that for a firm that makes say a generic graphic manipulation program for the masses will find it hard to actually benefit form releasing their source code.Keeping it closes might be more profitable.
There are some well-mannered people who are fanatical about opensource.But ultimately it isnt really how good the code is or how noble the ideas of opensource are.It is about rational people making rational economic decisions that will make or break opensource. Shooting down people who even dare to mention opensource and making money in the same breadth isnt helping matters.
The place where open source will work is when firms realise that it is in their best of interests to fund it. For example: Firm X needs some custom software to solve problem . It hires programmers to do a custom job instead of trying to customize off-the-shelf programs.Once this is done the company now owns the code. It can now do 2 things.Keep the sourcecode inhouse or release it.Say the company releases the code to the public with the restriction that other users must release the source if they change it.Now while company X makes no money doing so, it also doesnt lose money doing so either since the code is already in place. However the opportunity cost differs.Releaseing the code makes it possible that it can reap benefits from improvements it didnt pay for.Not releaseing the code makes this impossible. Releasing the code increses the likelyhood that more people will be familar with it workings, thus makeing it easier to hire people to modify it in the future. Not releasing the code means that the company X is either bound the the original team that worte it or have to have a large staff of inhouse programmers to maintain the code.There lies one example where there are economic reasons for firms to pay to have software written and then to release it. It also answers the question of who pays the programmer.
Make no mistake.This does not mean that only opensource will survive. What it means is that instead of large numbers of programmers working for "non-techie" industries like manufacturing,banking etc, they will be working for smaller software comapnies that help build customize software. Instead of just a handfull of large firms dominating say backend software or databases, there will be more midsize companies doing custom jobs.
Software that attempts to be everything for everyone will find it hard to survive as things become more complicated.Tailor-made solutions are more likely to appeal to firms. So long as there are no legal issues involved like companies being sued for code they release due to defects there isnt much compelling reason not to release the source code. That being said I think that for a firm that makes say a generic graphic manipulation program for the masses will find it hard to actually benefit form releasing their source code.Keeping it closes might be more profitable.
There are some well-mannered people who are fanatical about opensource.But ultimately it isnt really how good the code is or how noble the ideas of opensource are.It is about rational people making rational economic decisions that will make or break opensource. Shooting down people who even dare to mention opensource and making money in the same breadth isnt helping matters.
