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

On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 06:08:53PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> > 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.

> I imagine the salaries would have to be comparable to get decent employees.  
> However, those salaries could be coming from venture capital based on the 
> promise that the open-source business model will be successful.  More than 
> a few such businesses have failed already, taking those jobs with them.

With your examples, you seem to continue focusing on a very narrow segment
of the software market: operating systems.  I can't bring an example to
mind of a software house that has gone out of business doing Open Source,
with the exception of makers of OS distributions.  If you can cite other
examples, I'd be interested to hear them.

> > 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.

> But this is exactly my point about "free beer" problems with Open Source.
> You still need to pay people to write software if you're not willing to
> wait indefinitely for completion.  Unfortunately, "free beer" provisions in
> the license diminish the ability to derive revenue from the software to
> actually pay for the development.

Then don't base your code on someone else's code that imposes such a
requirement!  An abundance of Open Source code in the market does not
impinge on your freedom to write a piece of software from scratch; and if
it impedes your ABILITY to do so, the burden is still upon you to show
that you are providing a useful service to society.

If something that a group of hobbyists does in their spare time genuinely
demolishes your business model, then it's not a very sound business model.
If the only way for proprietary software houses to remain profitable is to
impose an artificial restriction on the growth of the copylefted commons,
then their continued existence is a net LOSS for the free market.

I do not actually believe that the GPL will lead to a significant
reduction during my lifetime of the overall number of well-paying jobs for 
programmers of proprietary software; but if it did, I still haven't seen 
any reason why the world should care: certainly no reason that /I/, as a 
critic of both the business practices and the software quality of some of 
the world's largest software vendors, should care.

> Yes, sometimes it's important enough to other business needs that paying 
> for it completely is worthwhile.  However, in such cases, it may well be a 
> competitive advantage, and being forced to release the code might turn it 
> into a relative competitive _disadvantage_, because your competitors can 
> achieve the same crucial business benefit from the code, while you alone 
> bear the cost for having written it.  In this case, you're better off with 
> the code kept as a trade secret, but the GPL doesn't really permit that.

THEN DON'T USE GPL CODE IN YOUR SOFTWARE.

If the competitive advantages of keeping your code secret outweigh the
difference in cost of being able to leverage existing GPL code, then write
your program from scratch and keep it proprietary!  If the competitive
advantages DON'T outweigh the cost savings of leveraging existing GPL
code, then don't whine that the GPL comes with strings attached, because
your application wouldn't have gotten written anyway if the GPLed code
hadn't been there!

> The Open Source benefits of "many eyes" for debugging, better security from 
> code transparency, and collaboration among all users of the software are 
> all real, pragmatic benefits.  None of these depend on "free beer", only on 
> receiving the source and having rights to share patches with other users of 
> the same code.  Allowing any user to use all the code gratis is part of 
> Stallman's moral code, but it's not much a part of the pragmatic arguments 
> for the quality of open source code.

If you don't find the arguments for a copyleft persuasive, you're under no
obligation to write source code and release that code under the GPL or the
LGPL.  He that writes the code chooses the license.  Use BSD if you want.
Use /whatever/ you want.  But also recognize that there are more interests
involved in the Open Source and Free Software communities than just those
of companies that wish to make money directly from the software they
write.

I work on Open Source software as part of my job as a network
administrator because out of all the tools available, OSS often comes
closest to what we need, and improving that software for our use is the
choice that makes the most business sense.  It also ONLY makes business
sense for us to release our modifications to the community if we get
something in return.  In the case of copylefted products, we get two very
substantial benefits in return: we get freedom from the responsibilities
of maintaining in-house copies of the work, and we get the assurance that
others who build on the work we've done will have to make their work
available to us as well.

> > 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.

> Transgaming publicly claimed that they were attempting to implement the 
> "Street Performer Protocol" as their business model.  This model was 
> proposed at least three years ago and recommended as a supposedly viable 
> model for funding development of public works.

And it's wrong to refer to this as an Open Source business model, in spite
of their affinities with the Open Source community.  The Aladdin Free
Public License is not an Open Source license.

> I see nothing inherently bad about this business model -- it's reasonable 
> to establish a bargain like this with the community -- we'll devote our 
> time, effort and skills to enhancing this public code, but only if those 
> people hoping to benefit can band together and give us enough money to make 
> it worth our while -- and by the way, here's how much that is.

I have not questioned the quality of their business model, I've only said
that it does not deserve the moniker "Open Source".  You claimed that
Transgaming's mistake was in using an Open Source business model; but that
cannot be, because they have never *used* an Open Source business model.
As best I can tell, what you actually mean is that they made a mistake in
creating a business model that depended on users of Open Source operating
systems.

> Transgaming could have refused to write anything until the threshold was 
> met, and nobody would be complaining that they hadn't released any code, 
> but because they took the risk of making the investment in coding BEFORE 
> receiving the requested payment for it, they've been maligned.  Is that 
> really a fair response?

Who ever said it was?  Why are you tarring me with the same brush as
anyone who accused Transgaming of reneging on their promise?  Is "I don't
harbor any ill-will towards Transgaming" so ambiguous?

> Well, I don't know about the composition of Transgaming's critics as a 
> whole, but Alexandre seems to have been quite upset with them, based on 
> statements he's made and his disparagement of their business model -- and 
> as the leader of the project, he can hardly be written off as an "outsider" 
> unaware of their contributions.  I'm sure he has his reasons, and maybe 
> he's in the minority among Wine developers; I don't know.  However, he is 
> certainly not the only outspoken Transgaming critic out there.

I think Alexandre is free to hold an opinion about whether Transgaming's
business model is sound without being accused of changing the Wine license
in order to harm them, which is the tone that I've read in your emails.

Steve Langasek
psotmodern programmer