1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
|
<!--#set var="title" value="Commercial Free Software: Not an Oxymoron" -->
<!--#include virtual="../includes/header.html" -->
<h2>Commercial Free Software: Not an Oxymoron</h2>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct">false
exclusionary disjunct</a>. 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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<h3>
Development
</h3>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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]
</p>
<p>
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]
</p>
<p>
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]
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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, <em>commercial airplanes</em>, 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]
</p>
<p>
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]
</p>
<h3>
Support
</h3>
<p>
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 <em>monopoly</em>. (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
<em>free market</em>. [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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<h3>
Distribution
</h3>
<p>
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]
</p>
<h3>
Conclusion
</h3>
<p>
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).
</p>
<h3>
References:
</h3>
<ol>
<li>
"Proprietary Software". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. July 10, 2011.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Open Letter to Hobbyists". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. July 6, 2011.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists></a>.
</li>
<li>
Williams, Sam. "For Want of a Printer". <span class="cite-title">Free as in Freedom</span>. 2002:
O'Reilly.
<a href="http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html"><http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html></a>.
</li>
<li>
<span class="cite-title">The Codebreakers</span>. 2006: Asia Pacific Development Information
Programme. Aired on BBC World.
<a href="http://www.apdip.net/news/fossdoc"><http://www.apdip.net/news/fossdoc></a>,
<a href="http://www.archive.org/details/The-Codebreakers"><http://www.archive.org/details/The-Codebreakers></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Operating system Family share for 11/2010". <span class="cite-title">Top500 Supercomputing
Sites</span>. Top500.Org.
<a href="http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/osfam"><http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/osfam></a>.
</li>
<li>
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.
<a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf"><http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf></a>.
12-13.
</li>
<li>
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.
<a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf"><http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf></a>.
10.
</li>
<li>
Larabel, Michael. "AMD's New Open-Source Employees". <span class="cite-title">Phoronix</span>. July 5,
2011.
<a href="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTYzOA"><http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTYzOA></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Qt (framework)". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. July 13, 2011.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Qt Licensing". Nokia Corporation.
<a href="http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing"><http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Qt Development Frameworks". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. July 8, 2011.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_Development_Frameworks"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_Development_Frameworks></a>.
</li>
<li>
"GNAT". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. May 9, 2011.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT></a>.
</li>
<li>
Stallman, Richard. "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation". <span class="cite-title">GNU
Project</span>. Free Software Foundation, Inc. July 13, 2011.
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html"><http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Coreboot and Open Source Development". <span class="cite-title">Business Blog</span>. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. February 28, 2011.
<a href="http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/02/28/amd-coreboot/"><http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/02/28/amd-coreboot/></a>.
</li>
<li>
"AMD to use Coreboot in Llano, other upcoming parts". Fudzilla. May 10,
2011.
<a href="http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22677-amd-to-use-coreboot-in-llano-other-upcoming-parts"><http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22677-amd-to-use-coreboot-in-llano-other-upcoming-parts></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Benefits". <span class="cite-title">coreboot</span>. January 15, 2008.
<a href="http://www.coreboot.org/Benefits"><http://www.coreboot.org/Benefits></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Categories of Free and Nonfree Software". <span class="cite-title">GNU Project</span>. Free Software
Foundation, Inc. July 13, 2011.
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PrivateSoftware"><http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PrivateSoftware></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Support Options". <span class="cite-title">Microsoft Support</span>. Microsoft Corporation. (No
portable URI. Go to
<a href="https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=1173&st=1&wfxredirect=1&sd=gn"><https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=1173&st=1&wfxredirect=1&sd=gn></a>,
click "Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition", select "Other", and
click "Continue".)
</li>
<li>
"Cygnus Solutions". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. June 8, 2011.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Solutions"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Solutions></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Marketing Cygnus Support -- Free Software history". September 27,
2006.
<a href="http://www.toad.com/gnu/cygnus/"><http://www.toad.com/gnu/cygnus/></a>.
</li>
<li>
Woods, Dan. "Red Hat At $1 Billion". <span class="cite-title">CIO Central</span>. Forbes.com LLC.
November 30, 2010.
<a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/"><http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/></a>.
</li>
<li>
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.
<a href="http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/red-hat-nearing-1-billion-in-revenue-not-bad-for-free-software/46445"><http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/red-hat-nearing-1-billion-in-revenue-not-bad-for-free-software/46445></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Canonical Ltd.". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. June 12, 2011.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd."><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.></a>.
</li>
<li>
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.
<a href="http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/03/07/nokia-and-digia-working-together/"><http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/03/07/nokia-and-digia-working-together/></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Partner Locator". Nokia Corporation.
<a href="http://qt.nokia.com/partners/partner-locator"><http://qt.nokia.com/partners/partner-locator></a>.
</li>
<li>
"AdaCore". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. May 20, 2011.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaCore"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaCore></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Company". <span class="cite-title">Sencha</span>. Sencha Inc.
<a href="http://www.sencha.com/company/"><http://www.sencha.com/company/></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Consultants". Debian Project. July 11, 2011.
<a href="http://www.debian.org/consultants/"><http://www.debian.org/consultants/></a>.
</li>
<li>
Sullivan, John. "Service Directory". Free Software Foundation, Inc.
April 14, 2011.
<a href="http://www.fsf.org/resources/service/"><http://www.fsf.org/resources/service/></a>.
</li>
<li>
"The Free Software Definition". <span class="cite-title">GNU Project</span>. Free Software
Foundation, Inc. July 13, 2011.
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html"><http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html></a>.
</li>
<li>
"Selling Free Software". <span class="cite-title">GNU Project</span>. Free Software Foundation, Inc.
July 13, 2011.
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html"><http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html></a>.
</li>
</ol>
<!--#include virtual="../includes/footer.html" -->
|