Quid Pro Quo: Why Software
Developers Work for Free
How to keep them working as Linux is
Commercialized
There
is a large group of Linux programmers who work on their own time on Linux
for no compensation. This article will address the major
questions and answers on this phenomenon and what they imply.
Why Work for Free?
Linux developers work for free because they
·
Harness
the benefits of sharing
·
Solve
their own problems
·
Want
their work to survive
·
Attain
self fulfillment and an education
·
Possess
an extremely strong emotional investment in the software they develop
·
Do
not want to be the unpaid employee dupes at the companies where they work
·
Realize
that software is not a gift
·
Possess
goals that were not those of the computing industry
·
Believe
that quid pro quo is critical to sharing
·
Believe
that licenses can enforce how people share
Linux
developers want the synergy that comes from people who use the software
and users who are developers that contribute back.
Many developers put their spare time into Linux programming and do
it for the love. They want a
continuing legacy for their work. They
are sensitive to the ethos of sharing and giving back to the community.
They expect such behavior to be embraced and practiced.
Quid pro quo is an exchange where for that which is given,
something is expected in return.
Why is Linux Developed?
Linux
and other open source software get developed because;
·
They
are not a cash cow for vendors
·
They
are not another Microsoft monopoly or monolith
·
They
are separate from the software consortium and its developers
·
They
create a positive sum game where there is cooperation in software
·
Their
development community is indifferent about vendors making money with open
source
·
Vendors
who make money with open source do so under open source development
terms/conditions, i.e., adhering to software licensing
·
The
Linux development community influences whether or not vendors and their
products are accepted
·
There
is little or no sympathy for vendors who can not make money on the
developers’ terms/conditions
·
The
open source nature of Linux infrastructure is most critical and compelling
·
Its
developers want users therefore vendors with open source software are
merely tolerated and assisted
Quid Pro Quo Defined?
Quid
pro quo means:
·
Open
source software is not a gift
·
There
is an expectation of value exchange
·
There
is a problem when vendors take and make software private/proprietary
·
Non-free
add-on’s to free software may be resented
·
Non-free
software that blocks the development of free software may be resented
·
Software
patents and copyrights will be strongly opposed
·
Monopolies
will be strongly opposed
·
Developers
want community control of important open source projects
·
Open
source developers will work for the competition of vendors who resist
·
Open
source developers hate monopolies; monopolies should expect to fail
Open
source licensing enforces quid pro quo since;
·
The
General Public License (GPL) is the original quid pro quo license.
It enforces sharing with a copyright that states source code and
licensing must be passed down on subsequent development derived from
pre-existing code.
·
MIT/BSD/Xll/Apache
Licenses are indifferent to quid pro quo.
·
Company-centric
licenses are unbalanced and erratic.
For example, Netscape’s public license was the first to state
that Netscape had more rights than anyone else but then it went open
source. Public licenses for
Apple and IBM were for liability protection while Sun’s protects
software and prevents its use as open source.
·
The
GPL fails under the Application Service Provider (ASP) model.
In this case, ASPs rent applications over the Internet while GPL
gets activated only if software is distributed.
Clearly a new license is needed to enforce quid pro quo with ASPs.
The Evolution of Open Source
The
evolution of open source community policies and developer acceptance is
seen in the following cases:
·
Red
Hat This company had a good
start, but possibly a deteriorating ending.
It used GPLs on all the software it wrote but is opposed to Linux
standardization if it permits competitors to get ahead.
·
IBM.
This is the 800-pound corporate presence that can do whatever it
wants. Its staff is larger
than the open source community. However, IBM’s public license had a Linux caveat/presence
that is truly open source in a polite and accommodating fashion.
·
Corel.
This firm is still trying to get it right; but overlaying its
license on an open source license is not how to go about it.
·
LinuxOne.
This is a story of a company that started out wrong and what
happens when it persists in that vein.
Its poor image comes from trying to latch onto Red Hat’s good
fortune.
·
Sun
Microsystems. This company is
adopting a true, open source licensing standard after having proprietary
ones with Solaris and Java.
·
O’Reilly.
Initially, this company was parasitic when it performed
documentation on free software but did not make it open source.
Since then, it has changed its ways and makes the documentation
open source while symbiotically making money.
|
