He sees everything through his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-in-the-wool communist sees everything through his Breznospecs.
Just as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist sees everything through their Smith-o-specs.
We have always lived in a world of complete economic reality, by obvious tautology. It is that economic reality that gave rise to the GPL and the Free Software Movement. These were market instruments made to route around other market instruments perceived as damaging or inefficient. That there is so much under the GPL right now suggests that there was real market damage or inefficiency being routed around. Just because there isn't money involved in this doesn't mean there isn't a market involved. This market just happens to trade in something other than money; you seem to see something wrong with that.
I think I see why, as well. These people, who will work on software for free -- for hacker kudos -- are perceived as a threat to those who would work on that same software for money. They are not forced, they chose to, but it still means market forces threaten to drive the salary of a developer down. You think this will drive hackers into economic poverty. If anything, it has had the opposite effect. The software people release for free earns them a reputation that allows them to later release other software for a very handsome profit.
The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its developers.
The movement is very little apart from the developers, so this reduces down to the developers caring more about the users than they do about themselves. Are they being too altruistic? I don't know. If they are, they'll soon find themselves being less altruistic out of need. If not, I don't see why we need to cast aspersions their way. They choose to work this way.
As for threatening the livelihood of programming work-for-pay, it isn't. There are still problems out there that you would need to pay people to work on, partly because they haven't forgotten about their rent in all of this, and partly because there just isn't that intrinsic motivation for some of the software people need written.
There also seems to be some sort of underlying belief that software is a zero-sum game. That every piece of free software is taking money out of someone's pocket.
The problem with that belief is that every piece of free software makes it possible to build more valuable new things on top of it for cheaper. Software is additive in a way that no other prior asset has been.
As such, the value of free software is tremendous, almost incalculable. At every step somebody bemoans that the GPL is preventing them from grabbing free software and turning it into an incredibly profitable proprietary product. They quickly point to the lost potential revenue, and completely ignore the value that would be lost by the free software being supplanted by a proprietary product.
What if Red Hat had forked Linux to a proprietary model 10 years ago and done enough to become the standard. Do you think they could have delivered as much as the entire community has done since then?
[Calmer now] Open source is fantastic. It is a stunningly efficient and elegant way to create software. I love open source.
What I don't love is the notion that either all software should be free (gratis) à la Stallman, or the less extreme view that you can make money from it as long as you do so in a very inefficient and non-scalable manner (basically charging for support).
Also, I find it quite ironic that some people describe (with a straight face) the supply of proprietary extensions to open source code as an 'open source business model'. That's akin to funding a peace march with the proceeds from arms sales.
And whilst I have lots of respect for what the community has achieved, and the people who helped make it happen (including Stallman and Raymond) I would argue that there is no inherent conflict between open source ideals and the notion that some users should pay for the code. If a developer wants to give his code away for free, then that's his or her choice and I respect that. But if another developer decided that his code is not free for commercial use, then I respect that position as well.
I hold the view that a low-friction and equitable licensing system for open source software would have a further galvanizing effect on this already vibrant sector.
Just as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist sees everything through their Smith-o-specs.
We have always lived in a world of complete economic reality, by obvious tautology. It is that economic reality that gave rise to the GPL and the Free Software Movement. These were market instruments made to route around other market instruments perceived as damaging or inefficient. That there is so much under the GPL right now suggests that there was real market damage or inefficiency being routed around. Just because there isn't money involved in this doesn't mean there isn't a market involved. This market just happens to trade in something other than money; you seem to see something wrong with that.
I think I see why, as well. These people, who will work on software for free -- for hacker kudos -- are perceived as a threat to those who would work on that same software for money. They are not forced, they chose to, but it still means market forces threaten to drive the salary of a developer down. You think this will drive hackers into economic poverty. If anything, it has had the opposite effect. The software people release for free earns them a reputation that allows them to later release other software for a very handsome profit.
The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its developers.
The movement is very little apart from the developers, so this reduces down to the developers caring more about the users than they do about themselves. Are they being too altruistic? I don't know. If they are, they'll soon find themselves being less altruistic out of need. If not, I don't see why we need to cast aspersions their way. They choose to work this way.
As for threatening the livelihood of programming work-for-pay, it isn't. There are still problems out there that you would need to pay people to work on, partly because they haven't forgotten about their rent in all of this, and partly because there just isn't that intrinsic motivation for some of the software people need written.