Decide what you mean by OSS purist, and you'll figure it out. I really don't know what you were trying to find out in the first place...

Many of the developers of big OSS projects work for big companies. Take a look at a linux kernel ChangeLog. You see a lot of email addresses from places like intel.com and ibm.com.

The main developer of GAIM, Sean Egan, now works at google. The creator of PHP, Rasmus Lerdorf, works at yahoo. HP sponsors many oss projects.

Also, here's an article: Finding an open source programming job.

Technical support can be a big source of money.
Besides, commercial open source games are viable, as you can only have the source code, free while keeping the art, maps and possibly game script not free.

Quote:

Original post by Barn Door They might have a utopian vision of a world where all software is free and there's no concept of ownership.

Note that Copyleft does not invalidate ownership; it merely aims (sometimes through inelegant methods) to encourage the donation of said property to the commons.

Quote:

Original post by Barn Door Would OSS purists prefer that the code you write for this company also be open source?

I seem to remember stallman [about as oss 'purist' as you can get?] raving at some point about how all programmers should just be consultants or something [as in had no problems with people writing stuff tailored to a particular group's needs]. Methinks that he's just uppity about people selling software to a less targeted market.

I don't know for sure though, I'm not so much into the whole 'purist' OSS movement myself.

--CJM

Quote:

I seem to remember stallman [about as oss 'purist' as you can get?] raving at some point about how all programmers should just be consultants or something

That sounds a bit more juicy.

Personally, I don't understand the sanctity of source code that's open for all to see.

Is there any other industry in the world where some people feel that the product or the main artifact should basically be given away and then have one try and make some money on the side? If one is after money, wouldn't it be more sensible to sell the software? (The thing that's most valuable.)

How did these ideas find their way into the software industry? It sounds like some wacky version of communism.

Perhaps its because much of the technology stems from universities where the creators are not so exposed to the demands of the real world or perhaps its the voice of the original hobbyists.

Typically the way they afford to live, is because they're paid by their employer to develop it.

Remember that, just because it's open source, does not automatically imply that a company cannot make money selling it.

There is still revenue from customisation, support, deployment, maintenance of installations, hosting of apps etc.

To assume that the only way of making money from software is to keep its source secret so that you can charge people to obtain the .exe file, is extremely narrow-minded.

Customers don't, in practice, want a .exe file, they want an application that fulfils their requirements, which might include a .exe file, but that's certainly not the whole picture.

Mark

Quote:

Original post by Barn Door Is there any other industry in the world where some people feel that the product or the main artifact should basically be given away and then have one try and make some money on the side?

Nope.

Quote:

If one is after money, wouldn't it be more sensible to sell the software? (The thing that's most valuable.)

Yep.

Quote:

How did these ideas find their way into the software industry? It sounds like some wacky version of communism.

It is, kinda.

Quote:

Perhaps its because much of the technology stems from universities where the creators are not so exposed to the demands of the real world?

I'm sure that absolutely plays a part. At the very least, I think it plays a part in the spread of the idea. Most idealistic, "socialist" ideas grab hold in university because you have a young, inexperienced (but not necessarily naieve), enthusiastic and largely unencumbered population. If the "real world" looked more like university than ideas like that would probably work more effectively.

Of course, that sounds like a huge whopper of flamebait, which is not intended. OSS is a grand idea in theory, and is not inherently wrong. But it's also not inherently superior to close-source software. It's just different.

I think that over time the notion of OSS will become more vague. In the case of a C# application which can be pefectly disassembled (though it may still be obfuscated), does that count as open source? Probably not. But then if I just provided the C# source with no comments/documentation/design docs, is that much better?

Of course, the example is ridiculous. But it's something to think about.

Quote:

Original post by Barn Door Personally, I don't understand the sanctity of source code that's open for all to see.

Sanctity in what regard?

As in security? The general idea is that with closed source software, you don't know that some programmer didn't write "erase all hard drives on Jan 1, 2000" in the code. With open source, you can look yourself [or trust that someone else is looking] and know what's going on.

As in goodness? Software doesn't do exactly what you want? Does it have a bug? Fine, go fix it yourself. No need to wait for the company to write a fix, pass it through QA, pass it through legal....

Quote:

Is there any other industry in the world where some people feel that the product or the main artifact should basically be given away and then have one try and make some money on the side?

Razors, Nintendos, Cable companies, TV stations, Radio stations, websites, modern newspapers, most enterprise level software companies...

Quote:

If one is after money, wouldn't it be more sensible to sell the software? (The thing that's most valuable.)

Unless the adoption of the software will provide you far more money down the road. Or unless your consultantcy to setup/bugfix/help out makes more money than you could selling it. Or unless your fame gained from the neat little app lands you a bigger job than you would without.

Quote:

How did these ideas find their way into the software industry? It sounds like some wacky version of communism.

Sure. Though the only thing wrong with communism is people. Sharing limited resources is going to leave some with less than others. Natural greed and jealousy kicks in and it all goes to hell.

Software though is not a limited resource. Everyone in the world can have a copy of software, and nobody is the lesser because of it.

Hi there, thanks very much for your reply.

Quote:

Sanctity in what regard?

In that open source code is such a special thing that people will crusade for the cause of all or even just alot of software being open source.

What's so special about open source code?

I appreciate the benifits that you presented but for me they don't justify the fervour and passion displayed by OS purists.

Quote:

Quote: Is there any other industry in the world where some people feel that the product or the main artifact should basically be given away and then have one try and make some money on the side? Razors, Nintendos, Cable companies, TV stations, Radio stations, websites, modern newspapers, most enterprise level software companies...

Good examples. However I'm not sure that they are quite equivalent to giving away one's source code.

Take radio. Clearly one can tune in for no real cost except to have to listen to the adverts. But if I want to keep listening to a particular station then I'm going to have to keep listening to those adverts.

But for a radio station to do the equivalent of giving away their source code they'd have to give away their studio and all of their CDs when you tune in.

They'd have to give away everything that you need to run your own radio station. And then one would be in a position to change the radio station such that there were no adverts.

With OSS, you're free to ignore all of the added services. In fact, you could even sell the software yourself which would be like setting up one's own radio station with the free studio and CDs (given away upon tuning in to the above mentioned station) and also start pulling in your own revenue from your own adverts.

So you see, with your examples, the recipient of the freebee is ultimately getting locked into earning the company more money. But with OSS, you can take the freebee and instantly become a competitor.

Quote:

Unless the adoption of the software will provide you far more money down the road. Or unless your consultantcy to setup/bugfix/help out makes more money than you could selling it. Or unless your fame gained from the neat little app lands you a bigger job than you would without.

Yes these would be good. But then none of them might happen. And so if the OSS purists have convinced me to give away my source code then I'm in not such a good a position.

Quote:

Though the only thing wrong with communism is people.

I agree, and as I think you imply, its because communism is at odds with human nature. So which are you going to choose? Communism or humans? Personally I'll take the humans.

And there are sides of human nature other than greed and jealousy of which communism also represses such as the urge to be free to go and do something cool and dynamic indepedently of anyone else.

Quote:

Software though is not a limited resource.

In other words software is an infinte resource? So where on the internet can I download Doom 4, 5, 6... to infinite? I suppose I could make infinite copies of Doom 3 and keep playing it but it would definitely get boring eventually.

Quote:

Everyone in the world can have a copy of software, and nobody is the lesser because of it.

You're suggesting that if I lock myself away for 2 years and work 80 hour weeks in order to complete a piece of software, that if I then hand it out to every human being on the planet to enjoy for free then I'm not the lesser for it?