Oh, my. It is free as in "freedom", you idiot, not free as in "gratis", RMS would tell you. And he would be right. You've debunked only your own misunderstanding of the problem...
I think you misunderstood the point he's trying to make. Here's the conclusion of the article:
The problem is that FOSS is part of an equation that has never been properly balanced. The other part of the equation is an economic one and one that has not been thought through. Instead ad hoc and unconvincing explanations have been floated for why FOSS makes money when in fact, as presently constituted, it so often does not and is parasitic on conventional capitalism or state money
It's a rant about the economics of FOSS, not freedom. And you know what? He's right.
If Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they open source the software, and improvements to it by outside contributors result in them saving another $500,000.
Then, Company Y adopts the software and uses it to save $2,000,000. They improve it as well, which results in them saving another $500,000 and Company X saving another $300,000.
Total profit: $3.8m
Compare this to the alternative:
Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they keep the software closed. No contributions are made by outside users.
Then, Company Y writes their own version of the software for $700,000 and uses it to save $1,500,000, less because they don't have the improvements made by outside contributors. They don't have the logic from Company X to combine with theirs, so they don't improve it, and they don't save any extra money. Company X doesn't save money either, since they don't get anything back.
Total profit: $1.1m
Everyone involved made more money in the first situation than the second, despite Company X giving up their source code to be used by other companies as well. This works completely fine under existing systems and requires nobody to arbitrarily throw money at open source for no potential gain.
Open source is the free-market solution to the problem of inefficiency due to competition--everyone implementing their own versions of software and in the end generating a worse result than if they had worked together.
What you've proven is that if I choose whatever numbers I want, and add and multiply them together in whatever order I choose, I can get whatever answer I please.
Also, if you read the article, he doesn't argue that source code should be closed - he argues that it should be paid for.
Let's turn his analogy around and ask, if every startup and nonprofit that ever wanted to put up a website had to either buy or build a webserver, would the web as we know it exist? More to the point would the standard protocols and encodings that we mostly take for granted have evolved? Or would we all be coding for aolserver and bitching about how to get our websites approved on different cable networks?
And the stuff about the source being paid for is a red herring, only a very few licenses prohibit the sale of software (and the GPL explicitly allows it, the only restriction is that if you sell software built with GPL components you must provide the source as well as the object code).
Another alternative is that a nimble startup creates a piece of software to solve the problem and sells it to 1000 companies at $10.000 a pop. This way the companies get their software even cheaper, and another beautiful startup is born.
With a contrived example you can prove anything :-)
Most custom-built software is too tied to internal processes to be useful outside, because a generic solution always costs more (the consensus is 3x). Most successful OS projects that have this source solve a narrow, highly technical problem.
There is a model that deals with this kind of problem, it's called the ransom model (not the most ideal name but it gets the point across nicely).
It was used successfully on blender, the basic idea is you build what you have to build closed source, the risk is yours. And then when you've built up a following you set your ransom price, the price that has to be met for you to open up the source.
If the product is any good I doubt it would be hard for the author to get his minimum wage and the world would be a better place.
Open source is a great thing, but I fear that it has led many to believe that they are entitled to the software (both the use and the source) they are using.
You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software.
My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stallman says.
You do have a right to the source code if it's free software. Your argument is analogous to saying that the right to vote is not a right at all, because it only applies to democratic countries. There are no universal rights, yet there are rights.
Of course you have a right to the code if it's free (as in freedom) software - that's the point!. If it isn't you don't. The parent was pointing out that many people feel that they have a right to the source of closed source software because of FOSS. Which they don't.
I wasn't talking about just open source software several posts up the chain. I intended the comment to mean that FOSS seems to be giving people the idea that ALL software should have viewable source.
You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software.
What about option (3): fix it yourself (or hire someone who can) if it's important to you, which in practical terms means you do need the source.
My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stallman says.
That's odd. I believe the authors of the software I use on my FreeBSD server claim otherwise.
That's odd. I believe the authors of the software I use on my FreeBSD server claim otherwise.
The beliefs of the developers of FreeBSD, Torvalds, or Stallman do not have to power to null and void several decades of legislation and legal precedent. Again, my original comment was how FOSS seems to have given people the idea that every piece of software should have viewable source.
I've toyed around with the idea of open source. I use open source software. I'm typing this in Firefox running on Ubuntu. I use the GNU compilers, both C and C++. I'm simply trying to say that there is place for both open source and closed source. Given the business I'm in, I will never release open source software, and I expect the software I do write will continue to be protected under various legislation.
pcof's point still stands. Freedom is about lowering barriers, barriers which cost money to otherwise bypass. FOSS provides off-the-shelf parts for software engineers. Even Microsoft has used FOSS code in Windows.
The problem is that FOSS is part of an equation that has never been properly balanced. The other part of the equation is an economic one and one that has not been thought through. Instead ad hoc and unconvincing explanations have been floated for why FOSS makes money when in fact, as presently constituted, it so often does not and is parasitic on conventional capitalism or state money
It's a rant about the economics of FOSS, not freedom. And you know what? He's right.