Free vs. Prop. Software. Is free financially viable?

[GNUrag]

Allright Ashish bhai, tell me one more thing.... how many people do you know are earning their livelihood through making proprietary software ..... agreed, a good job is must if you care for your future, and most importantly, you want to propose your sweet heart....

but then, there's no one who is earning whole life making freedom ware or proprietary ware.... people can always make Free Software while being employed somewhere else .... a single individual can't succeed making proprietary software also....

 

[tuxfan]

how many people do you know are earning their livelihood through making proprietary software
....
a single individual can't succeed making proprietary software also

I know of three people personally. They earn their livelihood not only be software but also some hardware and other ancilliary things. But software surely is one major part of it!! One of them is just waiting for his final product launch. As soon as it is ready, he would concentrate more on selling it and plans to reduce the time given to other parts.

people can always make Free Software while being employed somewhere else

So you can't do it full time!! You require a passion towards to cause to make you do it. So it surely is not a financially viable thing. That is what I have been saying from post 1 on this topic!

I was actually expecting some heated arguments on this from you and firewall because you are two most known GNU fanatics here

his should have been in General Discussions section.... who moved it here ?

:roll: I even sent a private message to an admin asking about it. But haven't received any reply. This thread surely belongs to the general discussion and not software. We are not talking about software, only software ideologies.

 

[GNUrag]

Just as you gave examples of ur friends, i also gave you examples of my friends, who are making money with Free Software....

However good news is that, Richard Stallman himself is going to come to India in feb next year.... He'll be holding a public speech, but we have to finalize that later... maybe we can discuss this topic with him... i'll let you know about that....

even i sent a PM to Raaabo to move this topic, he replied in negative... you know man, He almost never agrees with almost anyone... he's just like that only....

 

[tuxfan]

maybe we can discuss this topic with him... i'll let you know about that....

Please do that. I would want to hear from him on this, specifically on my concerns.

Just as you gave examples of ur friends, i also gave you examples of my friends, who are making money with Free Software....

Actually, I would love to make money out of free software. But don't know how. That is why this thread. But I must say I am not satisfied. I don't want to rely on Donations, etc. :roll:

You sent a PM requesting a move!! I only sent a PM to digitadmin asking for logical reasons on moving. I haven't received a reply so far.

 

[GNUrag]

You sent a PM requesting a move!!

No, i sent PM to Raaabo requesting him to re-move this topic to General section ... dont know who moved it here.... must be batty...

 

[it_waaznt_me]

Hey ... Lemme say my words man ... I aint getting enough time to post these days ...

So .. I moved this topic here because I saw it was a very nice discussion taking place ..It was related to software ( software discussion can include software ideology too .. whatever ..) .. I didnt wanted this discussion to die in the pile of useless threads there in General Disscussion section. Thats why I moved it here .. You can see for yourself .. In GD section if any thread hasnt got a post for just one day , it will move to 3rd page .. now imagine any new member coming here and not finding this discussion ...
Here in Software Discussion, this thread will be in 1st page for atleast 5 or 6 days ....
That was all I thought ..
But if you still need .. I can move it again ...

 

[tuxfan]

No, let it remain where it is. Thank you for your input. I only wanted to know the reasons . You have a point. But as you can see, there isn't any more inputs on this topic. A few people posted initially and then it has boiled down to only two of us I was expecting some good debate.

How about some more expereinced people from Digit Editorial Team giving their thoughts on this? Their experience could enlighten us. Please see if you can have that done. Thanks again.

 

[DKant]

A few people posted initially and then it has boiled down to only two of us I was expecting some good debate.

Well there were several ppl sitting on the fence..like meself. Unfortunately a thread's popularity isn't judged by the no. of ppl reading it, but by the no. of ppl replying to it..though it's not a defective barometer per se.

And I've got nothing to say..u two have put up all the possible points urself!!

 

[tuxfan]

Unfortunately a thread's popularity isn't judged by the no. of ppl reading it, but by the no. of ppl replying to it..though it's not a defective barometer per se

Who cares about the popularity of a thread? I am more concerned with more view points that could give me some more food for thought.

And I've got nothing to say..u two have put up all the possible points urself!!

Oh! So is that all on this topic. I thought there could be lot more arguments on this

 

[DKant]

Oh! So is that all on this topic. I thought there could be lot more arguments on this

Yes there could. On the ideology..well there seems to be a convergence of ideas here...towards the fact that "Free" (as in light on the pockets) software is not a viable option. What u need is 'reasonably priced software' (as has been said already). So I think we need to start discussing viable solutions here...whaddya say

Not many ppl seem to have read this part of my first post in this thread..atleast noone responded to it.

Thirdly, since we have agreed ( ) that capitalism is the way to go, most certainly..I must be paid for my work. However, the trick lies in passing on this cost in an efficient manner to the user. To do this one must clearly identify the target group. If my program will help lay users use computers in an efficient way, then it must be priced accordingly. If the lay user wouldn't need, and probably not know to use certain power features (which naturally required a lot more effort to code), I can chop off these features without any harm to anyone. Though this is not something we like, but it is inevitable. Can you get a Chevrolet Optra for 1 lac? Obviously not. We object to high priced software, primarily because it takes nothing to create another copy. On the other hand, you'll need a lot of effort and money to create a replica of an Optra, that performs as well!!

Therefore, the corporate market, which can pay adequately for the services it uses, must act as the sponge for absorbing the impact that reducing the prices in the lay-user segment would have.

At the same time, there are developers in the early stages of their careers (read students) who only want to experiment and learn with various coding tools (for example), and not build software that would actually be distributed for commercial purposes. So, companies like..say..Microsoft could distribute coding tools and other tools for free, while tying up their product with whatever software that's built using these tools. So, when the programmer derives commercial benefit out of the software he builds using these tools, he will owe a certain pre-determined portion of the money that he earns to ..say.. Microsoft. By distributing this cost among all the copies sold, revenue can be upped, while reducing the burden on the end-user.

Well there may be certain concerns regarding misuse of the free coding tools. But these can be addressed, by adding a read-only signature of the coding tool used to the code written by the programmer. This signature/key will require all users to compulsorily register online b4 using the product. If this product is being distributed wiht the consent of the "Company that created the coding tool", then a key tagged with the unique Product ID will be generated, with which the user can start working on the product. OTOH, if this product is being distributed without the consent of the "Company that..." then the key can't be generated and hence the product can't be used. This will effectively kill piracy as well.

What we are, and should be talking about therefore, is "Reasonably priced software" - aka the middle path.

That's about "Free" (as in light on the pockets) software. But we also need to discuss how much "Free" (as in freely viewable code) and "Free" (as in light on pockets) are inter-related with each other. I know tuxfan/anurag made a few points about this, but I don't remember what exactly they were..and I can't locate them as well.

The main problem here is..that unlike 'hard' ware (like say..cars), software can be easily copied, modified, and launched as a totally new product with hardly any additional cost and effort..and all this can be done legally if it's free (as in free code) software...thus I would be writing the code (at least in part) for a product that could even compete with the original!! That's obviously finanacially unviable!!

So let's see how the model suggested in that post of mine can accomodate this new problem. Pretty simple..

I extend the concept to inlcude the author of the program. So apart from the signature of the "Company that made.." the software key would also include the author's own signature. So, if I just want to modify the code slightly so as to optimise performance on my PC etc. I am free to do it. However, if I want to gain commercial benefit out of it, while distributing the code..I'll have to inform the company. Through the company, the original author can also be informed about the new product based on his/her original code. Subsequently, the commercial benefit derived out of the new product, would be distributed between the company, the original author and the modder !! The only disadvantage would be that derivatives of the original program will be costlier than the original one. But since the target would be volume and not profit per copy, this effect can be suitably nullified.

This way Stallman could have become rich enough to lead a comfortable life, while sticking to his ideal of making computer software financially and "code"ically available to all. Of course he wld still have got nowhere near Bill Gates!! But who wants so much money anyway?

Any other suggestions?

 

[GNUrag]

The main problem here is..that unlike 'hard' ware (like say..cars), software can be easily copied, modified, and launched as a totally new product with hardly any additional cost and effort..and all this can be done legally if it's free (as in free code) software...

Exactly.... Software code is essentially knowledge... and one cannot make knowledge proprietary... One can always sell his free software... and not depend upon donations alone...

I'm waiting for inputs from tuxfan...

 

[DKant]

One can always sell his free software... and not depend upon donations alone...

True..but what if a competing product was launched with only a few bells and whistles added to the original code? The software improves but the man who wrote the original code suffers financially..unless you have a proper regulatory/monitoring mechanism that is, which will allow some of this money to be redirected to the "man who wrote the original".

 

[sreevirus]

sorry for chipping in but i'm with DKant. why wud i want some1 to take advantage of something i have made? if i make a good software and release it as an open source or free software, can it make up for my labour? if i release it as a free/open source s/w, i'll be seeing some1 else will just use the original code, add some eyecandy and ppl will go for that...and what will i get? oh yeah, only the credit that I am the original creator of the software.
if i make an open source s/w and sell it, i may be able to make some gains at first, but will i be able to later when someone else uses MY CODES to make money? it aint viable. its like those times when u made something and ur friend gets all the credit for adding a few little things.
i'm saying this coz Linus Torvalds made the original linux kernel and l8r corporations like RedHat, SuSE, etc are makin millions out of that. Torvalds did a gr8 thing by releasing the source, but others wont be as willing to disclose the source of their creations....coz ppl wud luv more to be like Bill Gate$ than to get nothing but mere credit for their creations.
the concept of open source is good, but i wud prefer that people wud BUY the source for MONEY.

if i make a new hardware for my PC and realize that hardware can be very useful for others too, i'll first patent that hardware. or else if i announce HOW i made the hardware, the next thing i'll know will be some company is making that hardware and reaping benefits....now who wud want that to happen ??...else if i patent that hardware and reserve rights, i'll ofcourse get a lil benefit for my ideas from those companies.

SOCIALISM IS DEAD...CAPITALISM RULEZ

 

[DKant]

Seems no1 read my suggestions..the discussion is continuing only on the ideology front.

 

[tuxfan]

@DKant: Oh relax mate. I have read your posts in full, but by the time I came here, I forgot a lot of it, because I read a few more posts But I remember that while I was reading it, the words "exactly" slipped out of my mouth a number of times

Software code is essentially knowledge... and one cannot make knowledge proprietary

I disagree. Software becomes knowledge only after I tell others how I made it. There are things called trade secrets. Every business has it and so does software business. I cannot reap enough benefits out of my efforts if I let everyone freely copy it. But trade secrets in software seems harmful to the end user, so what DKant said earlier seems more practical. Here it is

So, if I just want to modify the code slightly so as to optimise performance on my PC etc. I am free to do it. However, if I want to gain commercial benefit out of it, while distributing the code..I'll have to inform the company. Through the company, the original author can also be informed about the new product based on his/her original code. Subsequently, the commercial benefit derived out of the new product, would be distributed between the company, the original author

True..but what if a competing product was launched with only a few bells and whistles added to the original code? The software improves but the man who wrote the original code suffers financially..unless you have a proper regulatory/monitoring mechanism that is, which will allow some of this money to be redirected to the "man who wrote the original".

I agree entirely. This is what my apprehension has been on reading the book and hence the thread. I am glad I started it.

f i make an open source s/w and sell it, i may be able to make some gains at first, but will i be able to later when someone else uses MY CODES to make money? it aint viable.
......
......
if i make a new hardware for my PC and realize that hardware can be very useful for others too, i'll first patent that hardware. or else if i announce HOW i made the hardware, the next thing i'll know will be some company is making that hardware and reaping benefits....now who wud want that to happen ??

I once again agree. Freedomware sounds financially unviable.

 

[icecoolz]

I wont waste time quoting whats been written and try to explain what I meant. I'll also try to keep it short

1) Java example I gave long back, is the classic example I wanted to use for the bigger cos to build a framework for building ur own programs. JDk essentially bundles the src of the java program language as well. And it can be modified as seen fit. So you have a framework but are not restricted by the framework.

2) Frameworks are the essential need for any programmer. We all know of general programming practices which have come into existence becos of the good frameworks which a few people identified and put in place. So I say money will be in building ur solutions using the framework.

3) everyone has good ideas....few seldom succeed. Simply becos ideas alone arent enough for success. They form the core. You need luck and a lot of bravery and faith in ur idea. And face it...we all need money to get things working. VC funding doesnt come easy. Nor do good ideas.

 

[sujithtom]

I agree with you Tuxfan!!

 

[sujithtom]

Well Tux Fan, I think I am late but:
I fully support what you are saying. I asked the same question to many but got no satisfactory answer.

If Linux wins the battle will programers have to sell T-shirts and Donations for survival?

What will happen if gaint companies stop giving donations?

Any way IBM and such company is providing dodnations because they hate Microsoft. If the proce of Software rises naturally price of Hardware decreses. If Microsoft falls, Softwares will be mostly free or of nominal charge so Hardware prices will Shot up...
Onece Microsoft falls, gaint companies will stop giving donatations..

 

[sujithtom]

Any way when Longhorn is released, it will sound the death knell of Linux as it can run Linux softwares also in it (read in Microsoft site).

 

[GNUrag]

Ashish bhai, Your query is right and somewhere even i agree with it... But the fact is that there are lots of Free Software already developed and tonnes of other in the making... And no matter what conclusion we all draw, A lot of Free Software for varied purposes will be made.... how does one explain this ???

I haven't personally seen any individual programmer making his entire career entirely upon Free Software... Except a few people that i know...

This sunday. 10th Oct, we'll be meeting for next LUG meet... we can take up this issue with Dr. Nagarjuna, .... will see you there...

2) Frameworks are the essential need for any programmer. We all know of general programming practices which have come into existence becos of the good frameworks which a few people identified and put in place.

Exactly .... Frameworks and Open Standards are THE MOST Essential principles to be followed in Software development .... and i can go on pages writing about this if anyone does no agree on this point...

Any way when Longhorn is released, it will sound the death knell of Linux as it can run Linux softwares also in it

Free Software based on GNU/Linux platform already works on Windows and there are no issues whatsoever by which anyone can prevent you from not using them on windows. Entire debate that we're working on is about Free Software and Open Standards...

Any way IBM and such company is providing dodnations because they hate Microsoft

Totally True... The only reason why IBM or ORACLE are promoting GNU/Linux is because they want to sell their custom made software that runs on GNU/Linux .... they're not at all concerned about Freedom or Openness...