Filed under: News, Microsoft, Commercial, Open Source
Bill Gates talks about open source. He's doin' it wrong.
We can't deny some of us here at Download Squad love open source software. But there's not a damn fool here that will disagree with the statement: "Bill Gates is an extremely intelligent man." We won't disagree that he's done amazing things for technology as a whole. And yes, we even wish heartily we had the faith in ourselves to say if we had that much moolah, we'd be even half as charitable with it.But right now we're all kind of standing around scratching our heads and saying, "Wha?"
Today Techdirt points out a nice little quote by the venerable Mr. Gates in a Wired article. It seems as though Gates says that open source created a licensing situation "so that nobody can ever improve the software." All right, now, that would be a self-defeating license, wouldn't it? What have the brain-sucking aliens done with the Bill Gates we all know and
Of course, we're willing to throw poor Bill a bone. The Wired quote is not a complete quote. It very well could be out of context. They then quote him saying that pharmaceutical companies who invent drugs should be able to charge for them. Well, yeah. Duh. And people who develop open source applications can also charge for them.
Open source doesn't necessarily mean it's free as in beer. Conversely, just because the local brewery is giving away free lager, it doesn't mean you'll get anywhere asking for the recipe.
We're wondering if Wired slipped up, or if Bill Gates is truly puzzled about the distinctions between free software and open software? Has he read the GPL? There are quick versions on their site... so even those of us who aren't as smart as Gates can get the general idea.
[via Techdirt and Wired]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
AlexL said 6:48PM on 4-23-2008
The GPL prohibits the developer from prohibiting anyone receiving the software from redistributing it. This effectively means any attempt to charge for GPL'ed software is nothing more than asking for donations.
Reply
Kristin Shoemaker said 6:57PM on 4-23-2008
Not exactly... In terms of charging for software:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
Further extraneous stuff from GNU.org:
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.
AlexL said 7:12PM on 4-23-2008
I understand that you have permission to charge for it. But that doesn't mean you will be successfully at charging for it. This is very simple economics, and Bill Gates understand it well. The price of goods will always reflect the marginal cost, which for software is 0. The only way to prevent the price of software from reaching 0 is through the enforcement of restrictive licenses that prevents licensees from redistributing the software. Since GPL specifically prohibits you from preventing your licensees from redistributing your software, when you charge for a piece of GPL'ed software, you are doing nothing more than begging for donations.
Kristin Shoemaker said 8:00PM on 4-23-2008
Technically, though, the same thing could be said about... anything. Just because you're charging for *any* type of software (or music, or video) doesn't guarantee anyone will buy it. And if someone does buy it and it has a restrictive license (and crackable copy protection. We sorta know how that goes) and someone wants to share it... The cat's out of the bag.
It's illegal, yes. And a lot of people do it. That's why they keep coming out with new improved copy protection. That's why they're offering cheaper Windows products in China and Southeast Asia, because of the huge amount of illegal software. Damage control? Maybe. Are they well within their rights? Well, yeah. Sure.
But if you were to write a program, release it under the GPL and charge for it, one of three things could happen. Someone might buy it and redistribute it point blank. Bummer, but hey. Someone could buy it, put in some enhancements and redistribute it for whatever they want. Everyone wins. Or someone (like me) could buy it, really like it, and tell people about it. But I'd think, *I* shelled out the money for this program. Why would I give it to someone else?
In many ways, yeah, it is the honor system. But what isn't?
It's weird. If a proprietary program is good, I have no problem paying for it and using it. Same thing with open source. But I would prefer a GPL license, since I would pay for the software either way. I imagine it's because the GPL assumes that I'm not stealing the software, and might have something worthwhile to add (heh, I wish I did).
There's no question Bill Gates knows how to run a business. And the model works to a great degree, of course, discounting piracy. Does it mean another model wouldn't work as well? It might, might not.
Businesses pay for RHEL, SUSE. There are added benefits, support and such. But it does seem to work.
AlexL said 8:12PM on 4-23-2008
It's true that even proprietary software can be gotten for free. But the fundamental difference still remains: GPL'ed software is fundamentally non-excludable, the license prohibits it from becoming excludable; proprietary software is excludable, through the usage of copyright laws to prosecute those obtaining the software illegally, or through DRM-schemes, or a combination of both. And it's this fundamental difference that marks the difference between a business and a charity. When it's neither illegal nor difficult to obtain a piece of software for free but you choose to pay for it anyway, you are making a donation.
This distinction may not be important for individual end users. As you mentioned, many users may choose to "buy" GPL'ed software anyway. But think about it from a business perspective: public traded companies, especially, are by law required to make business decisions that make the most profit for their stockholders. It is actually possible for stockholders to sue a public company if they pay for a piece of software that they otherwise would've gotten for free legally. That's why free software vendors targeting businesses incorporate extras in their business model, such as offering support and warranties, in order to profit. But for someone unable to offer support to go along with their software, it is very difficult to charge for a piece of GPL'ed software.
XIII said 7:59PM on 4-23-2008
I can't say I speak for Mr. Gates, or even agree with him, but he may have a point.
What he was describing was a problem of incentive. For a business, the GPL means a dramatic change to the business model; one that comes with a certain amount of risk. To them, holding on to their intellectual property gives them a competitive advantage. This means the risk averse entrepreneur, chairman, or shareholder look at the GPL from a wholly different perspective.
So far, there doesn't appear to be a suitable middle ground. Attempts at commercialization usually lean toward the service side where the earnings come from support rather than from the product itself, and the main portion of the product development comes from the community. This approach has its own pitfalls as illustrated by the reaction of open source proponents to companies like TiVo taking open source technologies and locking them up in their respective boxes. I don't have any numbers, but I'm pretty sure most of the Windows sales come from OEMs, some of whom provide their own support to customers.
Intellectual property looting aside, it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to go open source, at least not in the foreseeable future, and even then, not without a very good plan. There simply isn't an incentive in it for them. The comparison to phamaceuticals was apt, as it highlights the predicament that locks Microsoft into its current business model. If it weren't for things like Apple's growing competition and the OEM sales that set Microsoft apart from them, I'd also be tempted to draw a comparison with Big Content and the sinking media ship. So either way Microsoft plays it, it's clear they have to step up.
Reply
dc said 6:47AM on 4-24-2008
I am confused about open source too.
I understand that you can charge for software that is open source. But, doesn't open source mean that you also provide your customer with all the source code for your software? And doesn't this also mean that your customer who purchases your open source software can then start distributing your software for a fee or for free if they wanted to? And that people who purchase/download that software can do the same?
If that is correct then potentially you could build the next "killer app", sell 1 copy and then see no more profit for the rest of your life.
I understand the above would most likely not happen just because most people are lazy, but it seems possible when I read what open source is.
Please tell me that my understanding of open source is incorrect because I would love to provide people with open source software if I could make a living doing it.
Reply
Kristin Shoemaker said 7:34AM on 4-24-2008
DC...
That is the language under the GPL, so yes, that is correct. However, there are other open source license structures.
Check 'em out. One may fit your style a bit better, perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
manny said 6:33PM on 4-25-2008
@dc
i make a living of open source software (OSS).
I use OSS as an enhancements to my web products.
I setup CMS (web content management software and wordpress blogs) to clients and support them along the way.
I got a Linux server (free OS), mysql and php (free database and web language), CMS, scripts, etc.
Without this free open source software i would have no business or needed to start from scratch (which would had taken me years and thousands of dollars to pay programers)
the trick is you have to combine it with either your personal support or with selling hardware.
Apple's mac OS is based on BSD (which is free to use). But they combined it with hardware and then they have a killer product.
Remember that the software is free and open for you to customize, but the support and hardware costs are billed to the client.
Open source lets you have a big part of the market , but you will never have the monopoly of the entire world like microsoft has.
dc said 7:05AM on 4-26-2008
@manny
I definitely see that part of it. I can take an open source software and charge for the installation/admin/support of it for clients who need it. In this regard it's almost the same as a "closed source" business model. You could do the same using Microsoft products as well (or other closed products).
The part I don't get is, if you create a software that is new and unique and you put a lot of effort and time into it. Now, you make it open source and someone comes in, takes your source and competes directly with you. It seems like something you might not want to happen. Like Coke giving away their 'secret' recipe to everyone. It sort of makes the unique product you created into a commodity.
I suppose it takes a different viewpoint and business model. I guess I don't like the idea that someone can take the work I created and pass it off as their own.
My ideal license would be like this:
- I create the software
- I sell the software
- I support the software
- I give my customers the source so that they can customize and support the software for themselves if they choose to. Also, in case I go away they are not left with a 'dead' product.
With the limitations that:
- Customers cannot redistribute the software or use it to build software off of and redistribute.
- Unless I go away, then customers can do whatever they want (software becomes fully open source).
Obviously if customers have the source they could break the terms and do whatever they want, but at least I would have some recourse.
Dave Forster said 7:47AM on 4-24-2008
isn't the key word here "source" ? in other words - "the recipe".
Free software is completely different to Free Source.
Reply
manny said 6:46PM on 4-25-2008
GPL says it's better to sell software as a service or add-on to hardware, rather than as physical product.
software is virtual, but some people want to sell it like if it were physical... making a big mistake, which they are paying for already.
All google services run on Open source software.
if microsoft wants it could run all their windows live services without a problem on OSS and profit from it. In fact they do run a few linux servers.
Also if they do purchase yahoo, they would be 1 of the biggest open source users in the world. Yahoo runs almost completely on open source.
The future of productivity software is in the cloud and that's exactly were Open source is King.
those who don't evolve will go the way of the dinosaurs..
dan said 9:15AM on 4-29-2008
I love it when people who know nothing of history, licenses, or economics, to say nothing of software, act like they know what they're talking about .
I'm sure you've all been using computers since windows98 and so think you know something about software. Get out and read.
Reply