essays/commercial-free-software.mdwn: New file.

2 files changed, 272 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 1170908..51eca5a 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -10,7 +10,8 @@ srcs = \
 	projects/opkhelper/index.mdwn \
 	talks/software-contracts/index.mdwn \
 	talks/index.mdwn \
-	essays/index.mdwn
+	essays/index.mdwn \
+	essays/commercial-free-software.mdwn
 objs = $(srcs:.mdwn=.html)
 
 .SUFFIXES:
diff --git a/essays/commercial-free-software.mdwn b/essays/commercial-free-software.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a0c828
--- /dev/null
+++ b/essays/commercial-free-software.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,270 @@
+<!--#set var="title" value="Commercial Free Software: Not an Oxymoron" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/includes/header.html" -->
+
+Commercial Free Software: Not an Oxymoron
+=========================================
+
+TODO: Clean up some wording, consider removing reference to Sencha Inc., maybe
+mention Qt "open governance", mention transferable skills under "Development",
+discuss application stores under "Distribution", and note that most money in
+proprietary software comes from support rather than from licenses.
+
+Many people believe that money can't be made in free (as in freedom) software.
+They believe that "free" means "noncommercial", and they might compare
+"open-source" software and "commercial" software as if the terms were opposite
+and mutually exclusive. This is in fact a logical fallacy; specifically it is a
+[false exclusionary disjunct][fed].  Software can be both free and commercial.
+If a software copyright license allowed only noncommercial dealing, it would be
+considered neither free nor open source.
+
+Free software is in fact used commercially, and successful business models
+around free software exist (and have existed longer than those around
+proprietary software have). I've generalized the ways in which people make money
+with free software into three broad categories: development, support, and
+distribution.
+
+[fed]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct
+
+Development
+-----------
+
+Modern economic models around free software closely resemble early economic
+models around software. Keep in mind that software freedom is as old as software
+itself. The "proprietarization", as I call it, of software began around the
+1970s, apparently pioneered by International Business Machines (IBM). [1]  It
+was furthered by companies like "Micro-Soft" and people like  Bill Gates, who in
+1976 published an "Open Letter to Hobbyists" that criticized people for sharing
+software without paying for it. [2]  Before that time, software was usually
+distributed with source code (some universities even had policies of rejecting
+software that wasn't). Software was often distributed either at no cost or at
+the cost of making and shipping copies (at the time, on tapes). [3]  Programmers
+were paid for the time they spent writing software, not for copies of the
+software itself (or really, licenses to use the software). [4]  We see the same
+thing happening today. Programmers are being paid to work on software, and the
+software is distributed freely (that is, without unfair restrictions) and often
+even at no charge.
+
+I cite four major examples of this phenomenon of paid development of free
+software. The first is Linux, a powerful and reliable high-performance kernel
+found in everything from televisions and ATMs to large servers and
+supercomputers (in fact, in over 90% of the world's 500 fastest supercomputers
+[5]).  As of 2010, over 70% of work done on Linux is done by paid programmers.
+[6]  At least 659 companies have supported the development of Linux. [7]
+Compare that to the Windows NT kernel of Microsoft Windows, the development of
+which is supported by only one company (the only one legally allowed to do so).
+Additionally, AMD's recent hiring of two more graphics driver developers shows
+that if you can improve a company's freely-licensed software, they might hire
+you to do so officially. [8]
+
+The next example is Qt, a flexible cross-platform application framework popular
+in desktop, server, and embedded applications. [9]  Qt is free software,
+licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1. [10]
+Most of Qt's developers are employed by Qt Development Frameworks, a subsidiary
+of Nokia Corporation since 2008. [11]
+
+My third example is GNAT, a compiler for the Ada programming language that is
+now a part of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).  It was originally developed by
+the New York University under a $3-million contract awarded by the United States
+Air Force in 1992.  Under the requirements of the contract, copyright on the
+software was assigned to the Free Software Foundation and the software was
+released under the GNU General Public License (GPL). [12]
+
+Finally, I cite the GNU Project, a project announced in 1983 with the
+now-successful goal of creating a complete free operating system.  The Free
+Software Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization founded by Dr. Richard
+Stallman in 1985 to support the development of free software, hired programmers
+to work on parts of the GNU system.  GNU Bash (a popular and user-friendly
+command shell now used in systems like GNU/Linux and Apple Mac OS X), GLIBC (a
+C library), and GNU tar (an archiving program) were all initially developed by
+paid programmers. [13]  Yet all are free software, and all are distributed often
+at no charge.
+
+But you may think this doesn't make any sense.  Why do companies pay for the
+development of software for which few people pay?  They must be losing lots of
+money.  Actually, they have a financial interest in having high-quality software
+available, even if few or no people actually pay for it (but remember that free
+software is a matter of freedom, not price). Many companies sell support for
+free software; we'll see more about this later.  Many companies sell hardware
+with which free software is run (servers, wireless network adapters, digital
+cameras, mobile phones, televisions, cars, *commercial airplanes*, etc.).  Many
+companies see free software as a way to save time and money and not have to
+reinvent the wheel. If you want something that serves a similar but not
+identical function as a proprietary program does, you have to write a new
+program from scratch; a free program, on the other hand, can simply be adapted
+to a new purpose. I suspect this is part of AMD's motivation in supporting
+Coreboot, a free bootloader that is faster and more flexible than proprietary
+BIOSes, in their server and embedded products. [14][15][16]
+
+Finally, most software is custom software, software that is written for a single
+person or company and not meant to be released. This software is technically
+commercial and often free in a trivial sense. If there's one user, and that user
+has the rights to the software, then the software is free for all its users.
+[13][17]
+
+Support
+-------
+
+With proprietary software, only the copyright holder is allowed to understand
+it, and only they are allowed to support it. Support of proprietary software is
+a *monopoly*.  (And as it turns out, this allows something like extortion.  A
+phone call to Microsoft about Windows XP costs $59; an e-mail costs $49.  And
+soon they'll discontinue support for Windows XP completely. [18]  You have to
+pay to report a bug, then pay for an "upgrade" to see if they've fixed it. [13]) With free software, everyone is allowed to understand it and support it.
+Support of free software is a *free market*. [13]  There is competition in free
+software support.  Companies and individuals must please their clients, because
+their clients are free to go elsewhere for support.
+
+Individuals make money from making changes to free programs. They can support
+their own programs (in fact, Richard Stallman made a lot of money doing this,
+more than he ever did before [13]) or anyone else's free programs.  Again, like
+the earliest programmers, these individuals are paid for doing work, not for the
+results of their work. The results of their work are usually free software that
+does what their clients want it to do.
+
+Individuals and companies sell consulting services and support contracts for
+free software. The first company to officially do so was Cygnus Solutions,
+founded in 1989. Cygnus maintained many parts of the GNU development toolchain
+and offered commercial support for GNU software.  Between 1999 and 2000, Cygnus
+merged with Red Hat, Inc. [19][20] Red Hat sells support for GNU/Linux, and its
+revenue is expected to reach $1 billion this year, an impressive record.
+[21][22]  Canonical Ltd., founded in 2004, maintains and supports a number of
+free software projects, including the Ubuntu GNU/Linux operating system. [23]
+Nokia Corporation used to provide official support for the Qt framework, but
+earlier this year it sold this support business to Digia Plc. [24]  Digia is one
+of 27 "Qt Partners", companies that work with Nokia to provide commercial
+support for Qt. [25]  AdaCore is a company run by the original developers of
+GNAT, the aforementioned Ada compiler commissioned by the U.S. Air Force.
+AdaCore has been officially supporting GNAT since 1994. [12][26]  Sencha Inc.
+also offers support for its own free software. [27]  The Debian project has a
+list of 824 consultants in 63 countries who support the use of Debian GNU
+operating systems. [28]  The Free Software Foundation lists 86 individuals and
+companies offering support services in free software. [29]  Clearly, there is a
+successful business model here -- one based in a free market.
+
+Distribution
+------------
+
+Additionally, some people sell free software. That is, they charge a fee for
+distribution, even of other people's work.  How is this morally acceptable?  A
+person can profit from someone else's hard work?  Well, it may go against the
+traditional free software economic model of paying for time spent on work
+instead of for copies of the results of that work.  But it's not inherently
+unethical or even illegal.  In fact, software licenses must allow this practice
+in order to be considered free licenses. [30]  In some cases, there is a cost
+in making and distributing copies of software (e.g. the cost of burning and
+shipping CDs).  Or people may just want to earn some money for performing a
+moral act (sharing freedom) and maybe even contribute some of the profit back to
+the developers. [31]  In the 1980s, Richard Stallman himself charged a fee for
+copies of GNU Emacs (a text editor he wrote) that he shipped on tape.  In doing
+so, he made about $1300 per month, a respectable income from something that's
+"free"! [13]
+
+Conclusion
+----------
+
+In short, programmers have always had ways to earn money with free software,
+even before proprietary software existed.  Most programmers who write free
+software are in fact paid for their work, in a variety of ways.  The difference
+in free and proprietary software economic models is that copyright holders (not
+necessarily even the developers) of proprietary software profit from restricting
+users, while free software developers make money in more ethical ways.  Free
+software programmers are usually paid for the time spent writing software, not
+for copies of the software (or more accurately, the right to use the software).
+
+References:
+-----------
+
+1.  "Proprietary Software". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>.  July
+    10, 2011.  &lt;<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software>&gt;.
+2.  "Open Letter to Hobbyists".  <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>.
+    July 6, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists>&gt;.
+3.  Williams, Sam.  "For Want of a Printer".  <span class="cite-title">Free as
+    in Freedom</span>.  2002: O'Reilly.
+    &lt;<http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html>&gt;.
+4.  <span class="cite-title">The Codebreakers</span>.  2006: Asia Pacific
+    Development Information Programme.  Aired on BBC World.
+    &lt;<http://www.apdip.net/news/fossdoc>&gt;,
+    &lt;<http://www.archive.org/details/The-Codebreakers>&gt;.
+5.  "Operating system Family share for 11/2010".
+    <span class="cite-title">Top500 Supercomputing Sites</span>.  Top500.Org.
+    &lt;<http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/osfam>&gt;.
+6.  Kroah-Hartman, Greg; Corbet, Jonathan; and McPherson, Amanda.  "Who is
+    Sponsoring the Work".  <span class="cite-title">Linux Kernel Development:
+    How Fast it is Going, Who is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is
+    Sponsoring It</span>.  2010: The Linux Foundation.
+    &lt;<http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf>&gt;.
+    12-13.
+7.  Kroah-Hartman, Greg; Corbet, Jonathan; and McPherson, Amanda. "Who is
+    Doing the Work".  <span class="cite-title">Linux Kernel Development: How
+    Fast it is Going, Who is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is
+    Sponsoring It</span>.  2010: The Linux Foundation.
+    &lt;<http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf>&gt;.
+    10.
+8.  Larabel, Michael.  "AMD's New Open-Source Employees".
+    <span class="cite-title">Phoronix</span>. July 5, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&amp;px=OTYzOA>&gt;.
+9.  "Qt (framework)".  <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>.  July
+    13, 2011.  &lt;<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29>&gt;.
+10. "Qt Licensing".  Nokia Corporation.
+    &lt;<http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing>&gt;.
+11. "Qt Development Frameworks".  <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>.
+    July 8, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_Development_Frameworks>&gt;.
+12. "GNAT".  <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>.  May 9, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT>&gt;.
+13. Stallman, Richard. "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation".
+    <span class="cite-title">GNU Project</span>.  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+    July 13, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html>&gt;.
+14. "Coreboot and Open Source Development". <span class="cite-title">Business
+    Blog</span>. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.  February 28, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/02/28/amd-coreboot/>&gt;.
+15. "AMD to use Coreboot in Llano, other upcoming parts".  Fudzilla. May 10,
+    2011.
+    &lt;<http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22677-amd-to-use-coreboot-in-llano-other-upcoming-parts>&gt;.
+16. "Benefits".  <span class="cite-title">coreboot</span>.  January 15, 2008.
+    &lt;<http://www.coreboot.org/Benefits>&gt;.
+17. "Categories of Free and Nonfree Software".  <span class="cite-title">GNU
+    Project</span>. Free Software Foundation, Inc.  July 13, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PrivateSoftware>&gt;.
+18. "Support Options".  <span class="cite-title">Microsoft Support</span>.
+    Microsoft Corporation. (No portable URI. Go to 
+    &lt;<https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=1173&amp;st=1&amp;wfxredirect=1&amp;sd=gn>&gt;,
+    click "Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition", select "Other", and click
+    "Continue".)
+19. "Cygnus Solutions".  <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>.  June
+    8, 2011.  &lt;<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Solutions>&gt;.
+20. "Marketing Cygnus Support -- Free Software history".  September 27, 2006.
+    &lt;<http://www.toad.com/gnu/cygnus/>&gt;.
+21. Woods, Dan.  "Red Hat At $1 Billion".  <span class="cite-title">CIO
+    Central</span>.  Forbes.com LLC.  November 30, 2010.
+    &lt;<http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/>&gt;.
+22. Dignan, Larry.  "Red Hat: Nearing $1 billion in revenue; Not bad for free
+    software".  <span class="cite-title">ZDNet</span>.  CBS Interactive.  March
+    23, 2011. 
+    &lt;<http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/red-hat-nearing-1-billion-in-revenue-not-bad-for-free-software/46445>&gt;.
+23. "Canonical Ltd.".  <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>.  June
+    12, 2011.  &lt;<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.>&gt;.
+24. Nystrom, Sebastian.  "Nokia and Digia working together to grow the Qt
+    community".  <span class="cite-title">The Qt Blog</span>.  Nokia
+    Corporation.  March 7, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/03/07/nokia-and-digia-working-together/>&gt;.
+25. "Partner Locator".  Nokia Corporation.
+    &lt;<http://qt.nokia.com/partners/partner-locator>&gt;.
+26. "AdaCore".  <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>.  May 20, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaCore>&gt;.
+27. "Company".  <span class="cite-title">Sencha</span>.  Sencha Inc.
+    &lt;<http://www.sencha.com/company/>&gt;.
+28. "Consultants".  Debian Project. July 11, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://www.debian.org/consultants/>&gt;.
+29. Sullivan, John.  "Service Directory".  Free Software Foundation, Inc.  April
+    14, 2011.  &lt;<http://www.fsf.org/resources/service/>&gt;.
+30. "The Free Software Definition".  <span class="cite-title">GNU
+    Project</span>.  Free Software Foundation, Inc.  July 13, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>&gt;.
+31. "Selling Free Software".  <span class="cite-title">GNU Project</span>.  Free
+    Software Foundation, Inc.  July 13, 2011.
+    &lt;<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>&gt;.
+
+<!--#include virtual="/includes/footer.html" -->