From 6080951a252245bead226359f04ace457869df27 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: P. J. McDermott Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 01:18:13 -0500 Subject: Add essay on commercial free software. --- (limited to 'essays') diff --git a/essays/commercial-free-software.html b/essays/commercial-free-software.html new file mode 100755 index 0000000..0267525 --- /dev/null +++ b/essays/commercial-free-software.html @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ + + +

Commercial Free Software: Not an Oxymoron

+

+ 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 an affirmation of a disjunct. Software can be both free + and commercial. If a software copyright license allowed only noncommercial + dealing, it would be considered neither free software 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. +

+

+ 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). +

+
    +
  1. + "Proprietary Software". Wikipedia. July 10, 2011. + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software. +
    2. +
  2. + "Open Letter to Hobbyists". Wikipedia. July 6, 2011. + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists. +
    3. +
  3. + Williams, Sam. "For Want of a Printer". Free as in Freedom. 2002: + O'Reilly. + http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html. +
    4. +
  4. + The Codebreakers. 2006: Asia Pacific Development Information + Programme. Aired on BBC World. + http://www.apdip.net/news/fossdoc, + http://www.archive.org/details/The-Codebreakers. +
    5. +
  5. + "Operating system Family share for 11/2010". Top500 Supercomputing + Sites. Top500.Org. + http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/osfam. +
    6. +
  6. + Kroah-Hartman, Greg; Corbet, Jonathan; and McPherson, Amanda. "Who is + Sponsoring the Work" Linux Kernel Development: How Fast it is Going, Who + is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring It. 2010: The + Linux Foundation. + http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf. + 12-13. +
    7. +
  7. + Kroah-Hartman, Greg; Corbet, Jonathan; and McPherson, Amanda. "Who is + Doing the Work" Linux Kernel Development: How Fast it is Going, Who is + Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring It. 2010: The Linux + Foundation. + http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf. + 10. +
    8. +
  8. + Larabel, Michael. "AMD's New Open-Source Employees". Phoronix. July 5, + 2011. + http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTYzOA. +
    9. +
  9. + "Qt (framework)". Wikipedia. July 13, 2011. + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29. +
    10. +
  10. + "Qt Licensing". Nokia Corporation. + http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing. +
    11. +
  11. + "Qt Development Frameworks". Wikipedia. July 8, 2011. + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_Development_Frameworks. +
    12. +
  12. + "GNAT". Wikipedia. May 9, 2011. + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT. +
    13. +
  13. + Stallman, Richard. "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation". GNU + Project. Free Software Foundation, Inc. July 13, 2011. + http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html. +
    14. +
  14. + "Coreboot and Open Source Development". Business Blog. Advanced Micro + Devices, Inc. February 28, 2011. + http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/02/28/amd-coreboot/. +
    15. +
  15. + "AMD to use Coreboot in Llano, other upcoming parts". Fudzilla. May 10, + 2011. + http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22677-amd-to-use-coreboot-in-llano-other-upcoming-parts. +
    16. +
  16. + "Benefits". coreboot. January 15, 2008. + http://www.coreboot.org/Benefits. +
    17. +
  17. + "Categories of Free and Nonfree Software". GNU Project. Free Software + Foundation, Inc. July 13, 2011. + http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PrivateSoftware. +
    18. +
  18. + "Support Options". Microsoft Support. Microsoft Corporation. (No + portable URI. Go to + https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=1173&st=1&wfxredirect=1&sd=gn, + click "Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition", select "Other", and + click "Continue".) +
    19. +
  19. + "Cygnus Solutions". Wikipedia. June 8, 2011. + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Solutions. +
    20. +
  20. + "Marketing Cygnus Support -- Free Software history". September 27, + 2006. + http://www.toad.com/gnu/cygnus/. +
    21. +
  21. + Woods, Dan. "Red Hat At $1 Billion". CIO Central. Forbes.com LLC. + November 30, 2010. + http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/. +
    22. +
  22. + Dignan, Larry. "Red Hat: Nearing $1 billion in revenue; Not bad for + free software". ZDNet. CBS Interactive. March 23, 2011. + http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/red-hat-nearing-1-billion-in-revenue-not-bad-for-free-software/46445. +
    23. +
  23. + "Canonical Ltd.". Wikipedia. June 12, 2011. + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.. +
    24. +
  24. + Nystrom, Sebastian. "Nokia and Digia working together to grow the Qt + community". The Qt Blog. Nokia Corporation. March 7, 2011. + http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/03/07/nokia-and-digia-working-together/. +
    25. +
  25. + "Partner Locator". Nokia Corporation. + http://qt.nokia.com/partners/partner-locator. +
    26. +
  26. + "AdaCore". Wikipedia. May 20, 2011. + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaCore. +
    27. +
  27. + "Company". Sencha. Sencha Inc. + http://www.sencha.com/company/. +
    28. +
  28. + "Consultants". Debian Project. July 11, 2011. + http://www.debian.org/consultants/. +
    29. +
  29. + Sullivan, John. "Service Directory". Free Software Foundation, Inc. + April 14, 2011. + http://www.fsf.org/resources/service/. +
    30. +
  30. + "The Free Software Definition". GNU Project. Free Software + Foundation, Inc. July 13, 2011. + http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. +
    31. +
  31. + "Selling Free Software". GNU Project. Free Software Foundation, Inc. + July 13, 2011. + http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. +
    32. +
+ -- cgit v0.9.1