pcplantdb

["John Schinnerer" <john@eco-living.net>]

Aloha,

My spin on the various meanings of "free" in open source land...

Open source means 'free' in that the source code is available, regardless of
how much money someone wants for the software.  That means that the 'buyer'
can then alter, modify, tweak, etc. the software as they desire, or simply
repackage it at a lower price, or give it away, or whatever - but they must
include the source code, and so it goes...

A free copy of proprietary source software is not 'free' in that sense,
because the buyer has no access to the source code and can only do with the
program whatever the pre-built program can do (and is normally also still
bound by a license agreement that prohibits them from copying,
repackaging/reselling, etc.).

Most open source license projects I am familiar with provide at least the
source code and some level of documentation (readmes/howtos/FAQs for building
and installing, at a minimum) as downloadable for no money (this also
encourages broader participation in development and testing).  Beyond that,
there are lots of different ways to proceed.

As I see it, the fundamental difference in the open source business model vs.
the proprietary source business model is that the former sells primarily
services and the latter sells primarily products (though also services of
course).

Red Hat is not charging for linux itself as a 'product', because linux is
readily available for no money.  They are charging for the packaging/bundling
and media services that go into creating their particular distribution
('distro') of linux.  They also charge for a variety of consulting services
related to the installation, implementation, customization and use of linux. 
Red hat is fundamentally a service/consulting company, even though their
shrink-wrap distro may lead people to think they are a product company. 
Likewise for other companies selling distros of linux for money.

If I value the services of Red Hat enough, I will pay what they ask for their
linux distro.  If not, I'll get a distro somewhere else at what I perceive to
be a better price, or perhaps for no money at all.

Microsoft, Sun, SAP, Apple etc. are OTOH charging for their software as
products.  In many cases users are actually buying only a license to use the
product, and not the actual product itself - 'product' becomes a slippery
concept in the proprietary software realm.  Most proprietary software vendors
also sell services related to the use of their 'products'.

It is indeed legal under the terms of most open source licenses to charge
whatever amount of money one wishes for one's own distro.  Since it is also
*required* in such licenses that the source be included, there will most
likely (and preferrably IMO) always be some options for getting the source for
no money.  That is, nobody can "close" the source and thus prevent others from
acquiring it and selling or giving it away.

In short, in open source land money most often buys convenience, packaging,
documentation, media and other such 'services'.  Companies in the open source
realm generate revenue by providing services related to the use of open source
products.  They service people who don't want to build their own binaries, or
wade through sometimes minimal and/or chaotic no-cost documentation, or do
their own installations or customizations or configurations or administration,
and so on.

I favor this model, which makes the software itself, under open source
license, available at minimal to no cost.  Revenue is generated through
providing all the services relevant to the users of the software.  After all,
the people who develop the software will automatically have a decent head
start at being the preferred service providers.

Asking "lots" of money for an initial distro alone is unlikely to succeed for
long because anyone (or any group pooling funds) can buy one and then (since
they have the source) try offering a better deal.  Interestingly, the open
source license implicitly defines a "free market" in a truer sense than any of
the so-called "free market economies" currently in existence...


John Schinnerer - MA, Whole Systems Design
------------------------------------------
- Eco-Living -
Cultural & Ecological Designing
People - Place - Learning - Integration
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net