Re: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:15:11PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > Do you have hard numbers to show that programmers who work on proprietary
> > software are better compensated than those that work on Open Source
> > software?  For that matter, do you have any evidence that Open Source
> > programmers are *undercompensated* by any standard?

> Well, considering many Open Source programmers donate their time for free, 
> it stands to reason that ZERO is indeed undercompensation.  They may do it 
> of their own free will, but it remains true that volunteers don't get paid 
> what their efforts are worth.

So you believe that the number of hobbyist Open Source programmers in the 
world far outstrips the market demand for writing software?  If that's the 
case, then why is there so much code in production that was written by 
absolute idiots (read: Visual Basic programmers)?  If there are so many 
volunteer Open Source programmers to go around that they're eliminating 
the need for contract programming, then my employer should have no trouble 
at all finding a free (or low-cost) replacement for our current aging, 
flat-file based, crufty Perl customer relations database.  Clearly, our 
current estimate that it will cost at least USD 50K to *replace* the 
existing system, not to mention enhancing it to improve our business 
processes, is due only to our inability to do a proper freshmeat search.

Or not.

In any case, my question concerned the compensation of those *employed*
to write Open Source software, versus the compensation of those employed
to write proprietary software.  Open Source or not, the fact remains that
if you want a business-critical piece of code written, the only way to
make sure it gets done on your timetable is to pay someone to write it --
that's true whether you're an operating system vendor or a manufacturer of
fine industrial equipment.

For what it's worth, I *do* believe that the supply of Open Source
programmers far outstrips the demands for new and different *operating
systems* and *desktop productivity software*, and I believe Open Source
will eventually (though it will take a while) eliminate markets for
proprietary versions of some of these types of software.  But I'm not
going to shed any tears when it happens, because while more money flows
from the end user to the pockets of Microsoft than to any other software
company, I believe of all software firms they proportionally return the
least value to the economy in exchange.

> > If not, then any difference in income levels can only be attributed to 
> > market inequalities. I find it hard to seriously entertain the argument 
> > that the GPL is bad because it eliminates market imbalances.  More 
> > importantly, without real numbers, this is all nothing more than FUD.

> Are you saying that the GPL does, or does not eliminate market imbalances?

That it would.

> Regardless, does it take hard numbers to recognize that danger might exist?

It takes hard numbers before it should be considered a serious danger.
Theoretical discussions of what might happen given the right market
conditions, that may or may not ever exist, don't hold my attention.

> I entered this discussion as a neutral observer.  I've become convinced 
> since that Transgaming was treated rather poorly.  I began by echoing the 
> allegations I've heard, while trying to distance myself from endorsing them 
> in doing so, since they were points for the sake of the debate.  Now that 
> I've learned more of the background of the situation, all the evidence I've 
> seen suggests that Transgaming honestly tried to follow a recommended open 
> source business model (the "Street Performer Protocol") and not only got 
> burned by an unsuccessful business model, after going out on a limb for it, 
> but also got unfairly attacked by the community.

> Honestly, after the treatment I've seen, I'm surprised Transgaming is still 
> reaching out to the Wine community and wanting to work together, even if 
> not on an LGPL basis.  Many others would have stormed off in a huff by now 
> and carried a grudge for many years afterwards.  Strangely, it's the Wine 
> community that seems to have gotten huffy, and apparently that's entirely 
> because Transgaming refused to give the community something for nothing, 
> after making it clear early on that they were expecting community support 
> in exchange for their contributions.

> They never got the support, so they never made the contributions everyone 
> was expecting -- and everyone kept demanding that Transgaming follow 
> through with those contributions even though the community support clearly 
> was not forthcoming.  How fair is this?

> I'm growing very weary of this constant debate, and I'm no longer neutral 
> on the Transgaming vs. Wine dispute.  I began with the assumption that the 
> allegations of Transgaming's misconduct were likely true, but having seen 
> more of the background information that was pointed out to me, and heard 
> more of the debate on both sides, and seen their old business model from 
> the web.archive.org site, I've become convinced that Transgaming probably 
> did nothing wrong, except placing their faith and money into yet another 
> unproven open-source business model.

Then you are far more misguided than I thought, because Transgaming never
*had* an "open-source business model", except to the extent that it
benefitted them more to return some of their non-core enhancements to the
public tree than it did to maintain a complete fork on their own.

While I for one don't entirely approve of Transgaming's licensing practices,
and while I did favor the Wine conversion to the LGPL, I don't harbor any
ill-will towards Transgaming, and I don't believe that most participants
in the Wine community (which I'll be the first to admit that I am /not/ of
late) do either.  I would like to think that most of the condemning
comments Transgaming has had to weather have come from outsiders, not from
those who have actually invested time and code into the Wine project and
who are therefore in a position to appreciate the positive contributions
that Transgaming *has* made.  I suspect Transgaming also feels this is the
case, since they have continued to participate in the community in spite
of any negative reactions they might have endured.

I also suggest that you provide evidence to support your otherwise
slanderous suggestion that the switch to LGPL was motivated in any large
part by a desire to harm Transgaming.  While some of those voicing support 
of the LGPL may have had this on their minds, I certainly did not:  I 
favor copyleft, but I willingly made my (meager) contributions to Wine
under the standing license and I do not begrudge anyone the benefits
they might have reaped as a result.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer