Slashdot Log In
Is It Good For Business To Subsidize OSS Developers?
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Aug 30, 2008 07:18 AM
from the riding-the-foss-money-train dept.
from the riding-the-foss-money-train dept.
ruphus13 writes "A lot of developers for open source software have full-time day jobs too. As economist Milton Friedman said, 'The business of business is business.' So, does it make sense for companies to encourage their developers to contribute to the open source community? OStatic discusses a blog post by Alfresco exec Matt Asay, who makes the case for why they should. '"Companies like IBM, Intel, SGI, MIPS, Freescale, HP, etc. are all working to ensure that Linux runs well on their hardware. That, in turn, makes their offerings more attractive to Linux users, resulting in increased sales." While I don't think we'll ever see companies everywhere subsidizing employee development of open source tools, many tech and non-tech companies alike could benefit from subsidizing open source development from employees with talent. If more companies woke up to this idea, we'd see more purpose-driven, mission-critical open source software shared by firms in the same industries. That, ultimately, would benefit the companies providing the subsidies.' Should your employer pay you for time spent on open source development?"
snydeq points out an Infoworld story suggesting that there's something to learn from the way French companies are promoting open-source development.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Define "Good" (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it "good" to maintain and expand the upstream rain forest that provides your raw materials?
It's not good for this week's balance sheet, but it's good if you think about it for five minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to think?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, business owners who wish not to be competed out of existence by other business owners who think
The French seems to be leading the US these days (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Free Software has the convenient side effect for these businesses that it makes software not just a commodity, but a very cheap commodity. For businesses in the first category, that means people have more money to spend on their products. For businesses in the second category it means that they reduce their operating costs.
This is exactly why Microsoft has tried to encourage something like a Free Software ecosystem around their products. MS Office is not Free Software, but it has a set of developer tools that allow your company to hire someone else to extend it in ways specific to your business needs. You then aren't locked in to a single supplier for these modifications (assuming you are sensible, and use a work-for-hire contract so you own the rights to them). You can do it in-house, or contract it out to one of a great many small companies. Free Software just broadens this idea. The more of your stack is Free Software, the less you rely on a single source, and the safer your business is.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Collective action problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would a business pay for software that benefits everybody else? Why not just wait for someone else to do it?
There are answers to this question - e.g. IBM or Google is big enough and uses Linux enough that it needs to make the fixes just for its own benefit; pushing them upstream is not much extra work. Or, companies in long-term relationships - e.g. in the Silicon Valley ecosystem - can encourage each other to contribute to public goods like OSS via a "reputation mechanism" - contributors get respect and this translates into better relationships.
But the CAP is the fundamental issue.
Re:Collective action problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This attitude that business is being charitable to open source when they push changes upstream is just, well, ignorant.
They push their changes upstream because they don't want to have to keep merging them in every time a new version comes out. If they didn't push them upstream they'd either have to weigh down their development team with annoying merging duties or they'd have to stick with outdated versions of the software.
The fact that they can push stuff that possibly is completely useless to everyone else upstream and have it accepted as part of the build is one of the wonders of open source.. and, if anything, it's the upstream developers who are being charitable.
Parent
Re:Collective action problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, yes and no. Simple bugfixes are obviously best to push upstream, the bigger question is added/customized functionality which really adds value. At some point the value of having exclusive functionality exceeds the merge costs, depending on a boatload of factors ranging from interface complexity and stability, business value, use by competitors, specificness of the issue solved and so on. Very many companies are afraid to give away anything of value or just don't rationally calculate what it costs them to maintain it themselves, so they'd rather keep it inhouse instead even if they rationally should have open source it. But it's too drastic to go to the other extreme and say that open sourcing code isn't being charitable.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing you left out (or, at least, under-emphasized): if you push your changes back upstream, then you're no longer the sole maintainer of your fork, and others likely (almost certainly) can and will help maintain and enhance and fix the bugs. That's always a big win.
The flip side of this (something I've actually encountered) is when your add-ons are so specific to your particular company that upstream isn't interested in accepting your patches.
I've gotten paid, here-and-there, to send patches upstream
Re:Collective action problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would a business pay for software that benefits everybody else? Why not just wait for someone else to do it?
To scratch an itch. My company needed a fast way to convert FoxPro files to PostgreSQL [honeypot.net], so I wrote one. Now, we're not in the database format conversion business, so this isn't something our competitors would be waiting to pounce on. Why on Earth would we want to keep it locked up? I've already gotten bug reports and feature requests that made it work better for us, so we actually came out ahead by giving it away.
Honestly, especially for projects outside a company's direct business plan, I can't think of a single reason not to subsidize FOSS. You needed it and were going to write it anyway, right?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In at least one case I can think of, no one else will do it. My soon-to-be-former hardware-based employer is a great example (I got a better offer, and went for it). The folks I'm about to leave behind uses Linux very, very heavily. Their entire software backend to the product is written with (and for) Linux.
Linux made perfect sense for them since they're selling hardware, Linux/FOSS means it won't cost a mint to license out, and it means a HUGE amount of flexibility for the programmers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Why would a business pay for software that benefits everybody else?
If they do that, they will
a) They will look better in the eyes of open source community. And trust me, you want this, because we are usually those who tell others what they should buy.
b) They become more attractive employer to those who are most talented. Like me ;) . I would love to work for an open source project and I'm not alone.
c) They usually benefit from it directly also. For example if it is a text editor they decide to support,
Depends on the needs . . . (Score:2)
It comes down to the companies controlling officers opinion of the companies' needs.
On one hand, I see no motivation for small to midsized businesses to contribute to open source applications, especially those that don't relate to the business' operating needs. Each business' business model and methods are distinct enough that most software is completely proprietary, or a proprietary implementation of a base package.
On the other hand, public relations is sometimes given more consideration. Contributing t
evidence free (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, that article on the French is an evidence-free zone. The only actual French OSS project they mention is some middleware doodah that I've never even heard of. Trying to think of some myself... um:
1. Mandrake ...er ... ... that's it.
2.
3.
I'm sure there are others but none springs to mind.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
http://glpi-project.org/ [glpi-project.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Free.fr actually ships you a minimalistic linux box as modem; it streams the VOD through vlc, can record shows on it's hdd, and they even encourage you to hack it. I'd say that's pretty awesome, even without comparing prices or snooping practices with US ISPs...
Most FOSS projects need subsidies of some kind (Score:2)
It's inherent in successful FOSS projects that they work with their users, and when these users are businesses, it's usually win-win for the businesses to invest something in the projects they depend on.
* they pay anyhow, and it's better to pay as partners than clients.
* their engineers get to learn the insides of the product and so are able to reduce the risks of using it.
* they can get their business needs incorporated into the product.
* they give their engineers a way to enjoy their work more.
* they get
Because reinventing the wheel is really expensive. (Score:5, Insightful)
F/OSS means that you don't have to buy or write an operating system just to run a single program on a single device, or write an OS for a new piece of equipment from scratch. It means you don't have to come up with a proprietary database when you're not sure the bigger project will pan out. It means that you can support standards and undermine format monopolies, allowing you to bring your product to market despite an 800lb gorilla.
"The business of business is business" doesn't mean that short-term gain trumps long-term. It means that business, in a market economy, seeks advantages where it can find them. Having a large base of reliable free software is a big enough advantage for some companies that they happily underwrite its development.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but ... GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
The company I work for would love to subsidize open source development. We'd all love to use and extend existing projects instead of writing code from scratch. But recently I spent a couple of weeks writing a proprietary communications package when there's already perfectly good code on SourceForge.
Why? The OSS project uses the GPL. This means if the company donates two weeks of my time to subsidize this OSS project, it ends up losing ownership of the rest or our application. That would cost the company *a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen plenty of commercial support for GPL projects too. KDE, Gnome, Koffice, Pidgin, Yast, Mono etc.
In certain circumstances (proprietary libraries that disallow us redistributing the source, both licensing completely conflicting with each other, preventing us f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Software isn't a religion, but it's not a charity either.
Re:Yes, but ... GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? The OSS project uses the GPL. This means if the company donates two weeks of my time to subsidize this OSS project, it ends up losing ownership of the rest or our application. That would cost the company *a lot* more than wasting time rewriting existing code.
First, you still own your application. It's copyrighted to you. You own it. Second, is the app one your plan on distributing? If not, then the GPL is moot.
It's just to damn bad there's so much GPL. Let's get the religion out of software development.
The GPL keeps you from taking my code and locking it up in some proprietary application where I won't get to use it. You seem to be under the unsupported belief that I should let you.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly can you lock up code? The code will still be distributable no matter how many proprietary projects use it. The real question is, "should we allow companies (or anyone) to profit from code without giving something back?"
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL keeps you from taking my code and locking it up in some proprietary application where I won't get to use it.
So the existence of these proprietary postgres-derived databases [postgresql.org] means that you don't get to use postgres because its code is now "locked up"?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me turn it around a bit to see if it makes it easier to understand why developers choose the GPL over other, less restrictive licenses.
I have recently started writing a free software game. It will have a 3d isometric view. I will spend several weeks writing a free software graphics engine where there is already perfectly good code in proprietary programs. (Well, actually, there is probably already a free software one I can use, but let's say there isn't)
Why? The proprietary programs use their own lic
Re:Yes, but ... GPL (Score:4, Informative)
This means if the company donates two weeks of my time to subsidize this OSS project, it ends up losing ownership of the rest or our application.
No it doesn't. You (or your company) seem to be confusing copyright ownership with source code distribution. You don't relinquish copyright ownership of code you wrote by incorporating GPL'd code into your application, you're just required to make your source available if you're distributing it with the stuff you didn't write. Don't like it? Sorry, that's what the author of the code you got for and investment of $0 decided upon when they chose to distribute what they wrote --and own.
Parent
Seems to me the most important reason to.... (Score:2)
...support open source development is that of helping to advance the technology of the human race and benefits of in all the ways it can.
And at the rate that open source can do above and beyond the false constraints of proprietary software.
See more info [mit.edu]
The above contents at url has broken links and some outdated info but the general scope is still valid.
The paper only report "hirts_report1.0.pdf" address the failure, of autocoding to identify incompatibility inspired by closed source profit motives. Softwar
More work, more practice (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm surprised nobody has yet pointed out that contributing to OSS is likely to lead to a direct increase in developer skillset.
It definitely is ! (Score:2)
and in open source, you dont want to supply a constant subsidy either, there are other sources also donating to that project. so its like an installment plan.
you basically encourage and contribute to the development of a software you need or you probably will need.
its democracy at its finest - open contribution from all. how much a software is needed by people, market
No surprises (Score:2, Insightful)
A company whose livelihood is open source proposes that other businesses should subsidize open source... That's kinda like asking the RIAA and MPAA to sponsor a study on piracy.
Government is just a big user, LL IS big in France (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source is really about users taken responsibility and control for mission critical applications. Government is just a big user, like a big bank, an insurance company, or film production company. They have internal needs. All organizations need to look at their internal needs and skills and contribute effectively, where it is of direct benefit to them. When the benefit is big enough, they pay someone to work on a project directly, if not, they don't. Sometimes it is only part time, and the level of expertise is only for QA, patches, and the like. That's fine!
The major Apache contributors at the outset were all firms whose survival depended on having an effective web server. The business case for working on apache was compelling for all involved. Other contributions should be similarly compelling.
The flip side of yesterday's story on Quebec sole sourcing (avoiding all responsibility of any kind, and just following 'the market'), is national funding of software distributions (taking total responsibility to the point of re-inventing the wheel) Neither approach is going to work best in the long run. Large organizations funding what they need, is just the corporate analogy of individuals scratching their itch.
blog post about that: http://csptrn.blogspot.com/2007/03/national-use-of-open-source.html [blogspot.com]
Logiciel Libre is Big in France.
In France, that's what they do, on a massive scale. Example: the French Fisc (like the US. Internal Revenue Service) replaced their almost all Oracle all the time solutions by making an RFP (Request for Proposal) with specific performance tests for a J2EE platform. All the biggies were invited (Oracle, IBM, BEA, etc...) but the fastest implementation was by a small local firm using open source tools.
reference:
http://www.cllap.qc.ca/2006/modules/wfdownloads/singlefile.php?lid=48 [cllap.qc.ca] duh... it's in French...
They don't care if you can't read it, their in it for their own good.
The fisc saved a ton of money by doing a competitive procurement. The winning company is local, and developing expertise among people who pay taxes, and drive the economy.
Another useful initiative in France with OSS is
http://adullact.org/ [adullact.org] where people from a bunch of different local governments work together and fund and adopt common integrations of OSS technologies for specific vertical uses. Each local government reduces their costs by partially funding the common solution. Each gets a say in requirements and functionality delivered. None is stuck shouldering the whole burden.
It is not about creating new software projects. There are thousands of those, and almost all needs can be met by integration/consultation of existing software, because, frankly, not a lot of government needs are that complicated. People just have to have a mind set that they are responsible for the technological choices they make, and get educated about long term implications.
On a given government procurement, the traditional decision is 'buy vs. build' that is an obsolete decision, it is more like 'buy vs. assemble' or 'buy vs. contribute' or 'buy vs. cultivate (local talent)' today. The costs are looked at on over the duration of a procurement, not on a life cycle basis.
For example, if you take open office, and you say it will cost 4 years to make the transition, that's true. the requirement for the functionality is not going away, so in five years, assuming the transition was taken care of, when you have to renew your MS license, ooo is going to cost close to zilch. That's when they pay back starts.
Government needs to look at things rationally over the long term. the only thing on the side of the traditional vendors is perceived level of risk and market share. As the number of adopters increases, both of those aspects are declining.
Not my decision to make... (Score:2)
Should your employer pay you for time spent on open source development?
Thats not my decision to make, my employer can do whatever they wish with what I produce as a coder (or designer, or....) as I'm producing it for them. They tell me what to do, and so long as its within my ethics ranges, I do it - if they wish to then put my work out into the wild through some open source scheme, thats entirely up to them.
Yes - but give an incentive (Score:2, Interesting)
different people: different motivations & rewa (Score:2)
Normally, companies can't meet these different needs: and extra money doesn't help retain the kind of staff who would want to work on OSS projects. So as a cheap and efficient way of retaining people they value, why not let them work on their own projects - so long as it doesn't interfere with the business of business?
Why I hire OSS devlopers (Score:5, Insightful)
On a number of occasions I have hired people who actively participate in OSS projects. Here's why:
And they get bonus points if they have done the work in some area that relates to the work I'm paying them to do, even if we don't use their package. Why? Because it means they've been thinking very hard about the problem.
Yes: case study from Google / ZXing (Score:4, Informative)
I am from Google and co-operate the "zxing" open-source barcode reader project. (http://code.google.com/p/zxing) Two of us were allowed to devote most of our time for 6 months to this open project, because it made strategic sense for the business.
Why? To be brief, 2D barcodes open up new possibilities for advertising services in print. Our Print Ads business wanted to build services around them. However the market is still developing and while there are some dominant open standards evolving, there are several proprietary formats emerging. We thought it best -- both for the ecosystem but also for our business -- if the open standards won. So we explicitly set out to promote them, and one way of doing that is to release free, open, quality software that uses the open standards.
Contributing to open source can definitely be strategically valuable.
Re:Why (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
OSS developers get funding because companies think their free software benefit them
I may be overly cynical, but I would suspect that the only time a company contributes to an OSS project is when it wants some form of control over it: benevolence doesn't really come into it, nor does a subscription to Free Software ideals.
Take Apple: as closed and proprietary as Microsoft, if not more so, yet they contribute to OSS. In fact, take Microsoft, who now sponsor the Apache Software Foundation [arstechnica.com].
I suppose my point is that perhaps instead of asking whether companies should subsidise OSS, we should be asking whether OSS should want companies to subsidise it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I may be overly cynical, but I would suspect that the only time a company contributes to an OSS project is when it wants some form of control over it: benevolence doesn't really come into it, nor does a subscription to Free Software ideals.
I don't think you are over cynical, but I do think you are missing something. Companies contribute to OSS projects when it gives them a return on their investment. Sometime that's control. Most of the time, though, they realize that they can benefit from cooperation if the software is not part of the core service/business that they are selling.
To really understand how free and open source software works in this circumstance, you merely have to look at consortiums. These were popular with businesses long
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True, but I can think of a reason why companies would want to subsidise OSS for their own selfish needs.
Currently I use some OSS software in my company, dragging my boss kicking and screaming and recently, begrudgingly agreeing that it was a better solution!. Now, there are features I'd like to add, improvements I'd like to make, additions I'd like to implement, but I don't really have the time at work or at home to do it. Persuade my boss that we could improve the OSS software and we would have a better sy
Re: (Score:2)
Because colossal missed opportunities arising from beneficial externalities that are not getting incorporated into the development funding.
Example: almost *everyone who has a website benefits from some part of the LAMP stack, though they pay nothing for it. This isn't a problem, as the marginal cost of the LAMP stack is zero.
But if all those beneficiaries would pool a fair price -- or 5% of a fair price -- for that code, and put it into more development .. well, I can barely imagine how fast the stack would
Re: (Score:2)
Well, according to the Free Software Foundation:
'Freedom is a matter of liberty, not price. Think of free as in "free speech" not "free beer".'
Re:Why (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Open Road" article annoys me because it incorrectly implies that free/open source software has some sort of problem and needs subsidizing. Honestly, it's quite insulting to the free/open source software movement. IMHO, the author has hugely underestimated the strength of the free/open source software movement. It's not free/open source software that's in trouble - it's companies that rely on selling proprietary software that are in trouble.
Parent
Re:Sounds like 'la la land' (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say I'm running Company A, and I compete with Companies B and C. If I subsidize an OSS project (rather than paying external or internal devs for a private custom solution that might give me a competitive advantage), what's to stop Companies B and C from using the OSS code that I funded, for free?
Maybe they don't know about it, maybe they're not set up properly to use it effectively, maybe they've already bought in to a competing solution.
Or the reverse: If Companies B and/or C are willing to subsidize an OSS project, why should I subsidize when I can mooch that code for free myself? I'd be more than happy to let my competitors fund code that I then can use for free.
Maybe you want faster development, or maybe you want slightly different features than what your competitors are going for.
As time goes on, more and more companies would wise up and realize that funding OSS code let's their competitors mooch that code for free, and more and more companies will stop subsidizing since they're being played as suckers.
You're not automatically a "sucker" just because you happen to be creating positive externalities. I doubt that a lumber mill would much care who else used benefited from the software they helped fund for their HR department to use, unless the wider use actually benefited them by, say, getting bugs found/fixed quicker.
When's that last time OSS folk actually invented something? IBM or Google tweaking Linux or Apache and giving those tweaks back to the community is baby shit. Let's see Google release their search algorithm code so that Yahoo, MS, Ask, etc can use it for free, then I'll be convinced that subisdizing OSS is worthwhile.
A lot of the work on distributed/decentralized source control (Darcs patch theory, (deterministic) mark-merge, etc). FastCGI. Anything described in the RFCs. Plan 9 and Inferno. Package management. etc...
Parent