Open Source, Empty Pockets?
-
I noticed the debate rages over open source vs. proprietary (read "free vs. for profit"). Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks. Excuse me??? So the government is going to take taxpayers' money and give it to open source developers? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project? It brings the best minds together, focusing on creating a solution. Paying for open source with public money is like forcing slaves to build pyramids. (Well, not quite, but ...) I've always been a proponent of having those who need a problem solved bear the burden of the solution. If we want it bad enough, we'll pay for it. With some minor exceptions, shouldn't we let the free market determine what warrents a solution? It is reminiscent of paying an ungodly amount of money to study the sex life of crabs. OK. Maybe it's cool but don't ask ME to donate! Whaddaya think?
-
I noticed the debate rages over open source vs. proprietary (read "free vs. for profit"). Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks. Excuse me??? So the government is going to take taxpayers' money and give it to open source developers? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project? It brings the best minds together, focusing on creating a solution. Paying for open source with public money is like forcing slaves to build pyramids. (Well, not quite, but ...) I've always been a proponent of having those who need a problem solved bear the burden of the solution. If we want it bad enough, we'll pay for it. With some minor exceptions, shouldn't we let the free market determine what warrents a solution? It is reminiscent of paying an ungodly amount of money to study the sex life of crabs. OK. Maybe it's cool but don't ask ME to donate! Whaddaya think?
mitchell50 wrote:
incentivizing
Why isn't this word censored?
mitchell50 wrote:
Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks
Link?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighist -
I noticed the debate rages over open source vs. proprietary (read "free vs. for profit"). Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks. Excuse me??? So the government is going to take taxpayers' money and give it to open source developers? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project? It brings the best minds together, focusing on creating a solution. Paying for open source with public money is like forcing slaves to build pyramids. (Well, not quite, but ...) I've always been a proponent of having those who need a problem solved bear the burden of the solution. If we want it bad enough, we'll pay for it. With some minor exceptions, shouldn't we let the free market determine what warrents a solution? It is reminiscent of paying an ungodly amount of money to study the sex life of crabs. OK. Maybe it's cool but don't ask ME to donate! Whaddaya think?
mitchell50 wrote:
Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project?
It's supposed to ship with the source. That is the oldest, most fundamental definition i'm aware of. The idea being, you depend on an app, but due to a flaw in that app your life is a living hell, day in - day out, a constant battle between you (the sensitive pinkish human) and It (the cold, unfeeling beige computer). You beg, plead, cajole, and all to naught. The software won't change. Finally, you can stand it no more, and go at it with a debugger and hex editor. Thirty sleepless hours later, you've removed the annoyances. Of course, the next day it automatically updates, and your quick'n'dirty patches cause the new binaries to segfault all over your linoleum. If only you'd had the source...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
-
I noticed the debate rages over open source vs. proprietary (read "free vs. for profit"). Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks. Excuse me??? So the government is going to take taxpayers' money and give it to open source developers? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project? It brings the best minds together, focusing on creating a solution. Paying for open source with public money is like forcing slaves to build pyramids. (Well, not quite, but ...) I've always been a proponent of having those who need a problem solved bear the burden of the solution. If we want it bad enough, we'll pay for it. With some minor exceptions, shouldn't we let the free market determine what warrents a solution? It is reminiscent of paying an ungodly amount of money to study the sex life of crabs. OK. Maybe it's cool but don't ask ME to donate! Whaddaya think?
I think you are confusing "open" with "free".
-------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
mitchell50 wrote:
incentivizing
Why isn't this word censored?
mitchell50 wrote:
Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks
Link?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighistSorry. It *does* sound a bit pop-culture. Got a better one? Motivate? Give incentive to? Here's the classic definition for "incentivize" (American Heritage Dictionary): inCENtivize: To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate: “This bill will help incentivize everybody to solve that part of the problem” (Richard A. Gephardt). or Dictionary.com's version: –verb (used with object), ‑vized, ‑vizing. to give incentives to: The Government should incentivize the private sector to create jobs. ------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1965–70, American] ____________________________________________________________ incentivize. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentivize ____________________________________________________________ incentivize. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentivize How many people add APA references to their rants?
-
I think you are confusing "open" with "free".
-------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Technically, you are correct. It seems that politicians and management (in the same sentence) equate Open Source with "free". There may be valid reason to encourage true open source but most of the open source software of which I'm aware are also licensed under GPL, which in most cases means "free". Governments like open source because they can deal with bugs and enhancements themselves (if they can afford to hire competent help). The first clue that "open source" refers to "free" is that Microsoft is opposing it. Don't get me wrong; I love open source and GPL but when governments subsidize it, it's no longer what it was before. It becomes "unclean".
-
mitchell50 wrote:
Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project?
It's supposed to ship with the source. That is the oldest, most fundamental definition i'm aware of. The idea being, you depend on an app, but due to a flaw in that app your life is a living hell, day in - day out, a constant battle between you (the sensitive pinkish human) and It (the cold, unfeeling beige computer). You beg, plead, cajole, and all to naught. The software won't change. Finally, you can stand it no more, and go at it with a debugger and hex editor. Thirty sleepless hours later, you've removed the annoyances. Of course, the next day it automatically updates, and your quick'n'dirty patches cause the new binaries to segfault all over your linoleum. If only you'd had the source...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
I would agree though it seems like the definition seems to be shifting. Most commercial programs (produced to be sold to users) don't have their source code published in public forums; therefore, their code is proprietary. If it is open source (particularly if it is issued under GPL or similar license), it's "free" under most uses. I don't think the governments are necessarily saying they want more "free" software but the result is the same. Meanwhile, M$ and other proprietary developers are trying to compete. I know, everbody hates Microsoft, but is it time to discourage for-profit development using taxpayer dollars? If so, it seems to me that the open-source folks become the animals in George Orwell's Animal Farm. ;)
-
I would agree though it seems like the definition seems to be shifting. Most commercial programs (produced to be sold to users) don't have their source code published in public forums; therefore, their code is proprietary. If it is open source (particularly if it is issued under GPL or similar license), it's "free" under most uses. I don't think the governments are necessarily saying they want more "free" software but the result is the same. Meanwhile, M$ and other proprietary developers are trying to compete. I know, everbody hates Microsoft, but is it time to discourage for-profit development using taxpayer dollars? If so, it seems to me that the open-source folks become the animals in George Orwell's Animal Farm. ;)
mitchell50 wrote:
If so, it seems to me that the open-source folks become the animals in George Orwell's Animal Farm.
RMS is always right. I will work harder!
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
-
Sorry. It *does* sound a bit pop-culture. Got a better one? Motivate? Give incentive to? Here's the classic definition for "incentivize" (American Heritage Dictionary): inCENtivize: To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate: “This bill will help incentivize everybody to solve that part of the problem” (Richard A. Gephardt). or Dictionary.com's version: –verb (used with object), ‑vized, ‑vizing. to give incentives to: The Government should incentivize the private sector to create jobs. ------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1965–70, American] ____________________________________________________________ incentivize. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentivize ____________________________________________________________ incentivize. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentivize How many people add APA references to their rants?
mitchell50 wrote:
Got a better one? Motivate? Give incentive to?
I'm not the native english speaker ;)
mitchell50 wrote:
[Origin: 1965–70, American]
Interesting - either I must admit misperception about this word being "newspeak", or I declare that newspeak is older than I thought. Decisions, decisions :cool:
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighist -
I noticed the debate rages over open source vs. proprietary (read "free vs. for profit"). Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks. Excuse me??? So the government is going to take taxpayers' money and give it to open source developers? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project? It brings the best minds together, focusing on creating a solution. Paying for open source with public money is like forcing slaves to build pyramids. (Well, not quite, but ...) I've always been a proponent of having those who need a problem solved bear the burden of the solution. If we want it bad enough, we'll pay for it. With some minor exceptions, shouldn't we let the free market determine what warrents a solution? It is reminiscent of paying an ungodly amount of money to study the sex life of crabs. OK. Maybe it's cool but don't ask ME to donate! Whaddaya think?
mitchell50 wrote:
Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks.
If Open Source is free, there should be no profits to "tax". So how are "tax breaks" going to figure in?
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
I noticed the debate rages over open source vs. proprietary (read "free vs. for profit"). Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks. Excuse me??? So the government is going to take taxpayers' money and give it to open source developers? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project? It brings the best minds together, focusing on creating a solution. Paying for open source with public money is like forcing slaves to build pyramids. (Well, not quite, but ...) I've always been a proponent of having those who need a problem solved bear the burden of the solution. If we want it bad enough, we'll pay for it. With some minor exceptions, shouldn't we let the free market determine what warrents a solution? It is reminiscent of paying an ungodly amount of money to study the sex life of crabs. OK. Maybe it's cool but don't ask ME to donate! Whaddaya think?
mitchell50 wrote:
I noticed the debate rages over open source vs. proprietary (read "free vs. for profit"). Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks. Excuse me??? So the government is going to take taxpayers' money and give it to open source developers? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project? It brings the best minds together, focusing on creating a solution. Paying for open source with public money is like forcing slaves to build pyramids. (Well, not quite, but ...) I've always been a proponent of having those who need a problem solved bear the burden of the solution. If we want it bad enough, we'll pay for it. With some minor exceptions, shouldn't we let the free market determine what warrents a solution? It is reminiscent of paying an ungodly amount of money to study the sex life of crabs. OK. Maybe it's cool but don't ask ME to donate!
There are obvious problems in deciding who to subsidise, but there is a core of economic sense to the proposal. The thing about software is that is costs a lot to write, but almost nothing to distribute to additional users. Making your product available to 1 million users doesn't cost you much more than making it available to 10 users. This makes it very different to, say, a house. Building 1 million houses costs a hell of a lot more than building 10. To cover the costs of writing the software, commercial operators must charge each user a lot more than it costs to supply the software to the user. Suppose it costs 20 cents to supply the software to the user, that a user values the software at $100, and that the software is priced at $200. As a result, the user goes without the software. This clearly involves an inefficiency. There is a potential net gain of $99.80 from a sale to that user that is not being realised. (At a sale price of $100, this benefit accrues entirely to the vendor; at a sale price of 20 cents, this benefit accrues entirely to the buyer, with a sharing of benefits at any intermediate price.) This inefficiency will always be present so long as the price exceeds 20 cents. To some extent, software vendors can get around this problem with price discrimination --- charging different prices to different people --- but this remedy is imperfect and incomplete. Having software producers funded by the government gets around the problem. The price can be set at 20 cents, so everyone who v
-
mitchell50 wrote:
I noticed the debate rages over open source vs. proprietary (read "free vs. for profit"). Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks. Excuse me??? So the government is going to take taxpayers' money and give it to open source developers? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project? It brings the best minds together, focusing on creating a solution. Paying for open source with public money is like forcing slaves to build pyramids. (Well, not quite, but ...) I've always been a proponent of having those who need a problem solved bear the burden of the solution. If we want it bad enough, we'll pay for it. With some minor exceptions, shouldn't we let the free market determine what warrents a solution? It is reminiscent of paying an ungodly amount of money to study the sex life of crabs. OK. Maybe it's cool but don't ask ME to donate!
There are obvious problems in deciding who to subsidise, but there is a core of economic sense to the proposal. The thing about software is that is costs a lot to write, but almost nothing to distribute to additional users. Making your product available to 1 million users doesn't cost you much more than making it available to 10 users. This makes it very different to, say, a house. Building 1 million houses costs a hell of a lot more than building 10. To cover the costs of writing the software, commercial operators must charge each user a lot more than it costs to supply the software to the user. Suppose it costs 20 cents to supply the software to the user, that a user values the software at $100, and that the software is priced at $200. As a result, the user goes without the software. This clearly involves an inefficiency. There is a potential net gain of $99.80 from a sale to that user that is not being realised. (At a sale price of $100, this benefit accrues entirely to the vendor; at a sale price of 20 cents, this benefit accrues entirely to the buyer, with a sharing of benefits at any intermediate price.) This inefficiency will always be present so long as the price exceeds 20 cents. To some extent, software vendors can get around this problem with price discrimination --- charging different prices to different people --- but this remedy is imperfect and incomplete. Having software producers funded by the government gets around the problem. The price can be set at 20 cents, so everyone who v
This is true to some extent. The biggest problem is, if I dig ditches for a living (oh, if I could only find such a job!), why should I be taxed to pay for somebody who wants to play video games, monitor equestrian breeding lines or transfer doughnut futures to Iraq? I want ditch-digging software. The argument can be made that the equestrians will build more fields and require more ditch-diggers, but that is far removed from me. I probably won't reap enough benefits to cover my additional taxes. This is sort of the Robin Hood approach. If you are a Keynsian economist, it makes sense to charge more for the software because it increases the velocity of money. That, in turn, stimulates the economy, produces more goods, and increases everyone's standard of living. All that being said, the government's job is to protect us from ourselves. They are charged with playing Robin Hood in many instances because us poor dumb ditch diggers (no offense to ditch diggers) really don't understand why studying the sex lives of crabs can be valuable to everyone. In other words, maybe some open source software should be encouraged. But to take a broad stab at it with business software (especially vertical applications) would be folly (in my opinion). There are numerous examples of this type of subsidy doing harm to an industry. Just look at health care, agriculture, and administration in many enlightened countries. The capitalistic incentive is taken away. Entrepreneurs' efforts aren't rewarded sufficiently to inspire their best efforts. We have a computer industry where it is today because there was the enticement of huge revenues. I'm convinced that without that allure, we wouldn't even have the 8086 processor yet. There's also one other danger in government subsidies: government rarely operates as efficiently as they could. That means it costs $0.43 per user to make the $0.20 software available. That's why subsidies must be very carefully chosen. The other valid issue you bring up is the cost of distribution. The truth is, it costs way more to distribute to 1,000,000 users than 10. Nearly 50% of every dollar in software revenue goes to sales and distribution. Open source tends to totally circumvent this since who really cares if anybody knows about the software? It's not like anybody makes any money when the product is sold (or at least not very much). If it's good enough, the word will eventually get out. Open office has been around since '97 but it has taken nearly a decade for it to really make inroads