[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: What about changing the rules?

---

---

I thought up a similar idea about a year ago, but I think it's
unworkable economically and philosophically.

My idea was sort of a GeoCities for Free Software Developers. I would
host all the development projects, offer free space, free CVS servers,
free database/servlet access for people to run bug tracking
services. Email list support, etc.

I would also press CDs and re-sell distributions of the free software,
and sell ad-banners targeted to software developers on the site.

Central to the idea was giving kickbacks to developer groups based on
the number of downloads/CDs/impressions on the web site.  These groups
would then in turn, decide how to distribute revenues to the people
who contributed.

The problem is, how do you decide to split up the revenues within
groups? Does the person who contribute the most lines of code get the
most? What is the metric to be used? What about the architect who
didn't write much code, but came up with a great design and managed to
get developers to work on it? Unlike a traditional company, there is
no strict hierarchy. There is no employeement agreement, and
bug-patchers are equivalent to extremely short-term temps. If I send
in a bug, how do I know how much money I will get? Put it up to a
vote? How do I make a rational economic decision of which group to
contribute to, and how much of my time to contribute?


The second problem is philosophical -- you read Slashdot.org don't
you?  A vast number of young developers have fell for the
revolutionary rhetoric of Richard Stallman and the FSF. You're not
supposed to use or write free software because it is "free" ($0), or
because it is supposed to lead to better bug-free software
(utilitarian), but because it is MORALLY RIGHT. 

As a result, anytime anyone tries to profit at all from free software,
the red guards of the open-source movement show up at the gates. Even
Tim O'Reilly, who's company IMHO has single handedly rescued a lot of
open-source projects, by providing what most free developers don't --
good documentation, has been demonized.


Also, 90% of Mozilla code is contributed by full-time Netscape 
developers. And projects like Gnome are also fully funded by
Redhat Labs.

I think you will find that open-source free-software works with large,
highly visible projects, that are seeded by a group of funded
developers, and then patched-to-hell by the public. But where I think
it falls down is the startup-design phase, where the core architecture
needs to be written. It also fails to account for usability,
documentation, or user interface, primarily because the people who
write the code (the developers), are writing code for themselves, and
are not the primarily consumers of GUIs, documentation, etc.

Eric S. Raymond will tell you that open-source works because developers
get paid by reputation, and that such software is better because if
a developer needs a feature, he will add it.

My claim is that open-source will never produce anything as good as
Office 2000, because open-source hackers have a distaste for GUIs, the
enduser, and documentation. A developer doesn't need documentation for
his own application, since he knows it by heart, ergo, he doesn't
write any. And since a developer primarily works for his own
enjoyment and adds features that he wants, he never talks to the
real customer of the software -- the user -- to find out what they
want.

In writing open-source, you can justify working for your own enjoyment,
but can you justify working on stuff for someone else's enjoyment/use
if you're not getting paid? Unlike the beautiful revolutionary rhetoric
we read on Slashdot, I feel the open-source movement is primarily
a selfish one.

Just my GPL'ed comments,
-Ray


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

---