> Unfortunately most of the wealth created by OSS is being reaped by the large cloud vendors
Why is that unfortunate? It has enabled a cycle of OSS to user AND OSS to vendor to vendor enrichment to user...since you can always modify the code at will. The best of both worlds, until you get into that special "extension" problem that GPL3 tried to lock down.
Because none of the Indie OSS developers that have donated their free time and energy into creating it will be rewarded with any of the value they've created from their efforts.
Because there will only ever be 3 major multi-billion tech companies that stand to benefit most from OSS.
Because they own their markets, where they can wait to find out what OSS software has become successful and either just profit from it by hosting it directly or invest the paid resources into replicating it - an opportunity and reward not available to anyone else that doesn't have a large cloud market share.
Because they're using their profits (made possible from hosting other's OSS investments) to finance their own OSS investments which will have infinite paid and support resources that Indie OSS developers will be unable to compete against, eventually leading to building a brand where there'll be customers that will only use OSS by the cloud vendors first, since they're commercially backed and dependable.
There are many ways to be rewarded for one's efforts. When I give my source code away it's not because I'm being exploited, it's because I'm doing the work for some other motivation. Keeping the code locked up afterward doesn't benefit me. It's a lot of work to start and maintain a business, and it's often more hassle than it's worth to try to charge for software. If I have some motivation to create a thing, and that thing has been created, what do I lose by sharing it?
I can only do so many things at a time. I can't possibly run as many businesses at a time as it would take to charge money for all the code I write. So, why not give it away?
It's weird how programmers are the only workers who think it's okay to give away their work for free for businesses to use and sell in their own products. Nobody expects firefighters or nurses to work for free. Even if lawyers sometimes have to work pro bono, it's to serve marginalized or poor communities/demographics, not to enrich massive, incredibly wealthy companies.
Millions of people every year make great salaries working as programmers.
Many artists give away their work. Scientists give away their work. The DIY community and maker community give away their work. And so on... programmers aren't unique here.
Framing all of OSS as simply "free labor to enrich massive, incredible wealth companies" is just wrong.
That being said, I do agree we can certainly do a better job of supporting OSS work. I hope to see continued innovation in this area.
> Many artists give away their work. Scientists give away their work.
Funny you should mention this. Look into the median salaries of these professions, not the outliers.
I am not against OSS but when something is given away for free, people will have the perception that it has less value. Once that thought has anchored, no one will be willing to pay more in the future.
absolutely nothing. Which is indeed one particular type of OSS model. The best kind imho.
But this thread has been talking about business models which involve using OSS to get a customer in the door who will then pay the business for other things (such as hosting/services). Under the OSS, this business model seems to be failing as major corporations start to encroach.
It’s unfortunate that you forgot to mention that these indie oss developers are highly sought after for independent contract work or direct hire positions. Open Source software was never meant to pay the bills of open source developers, it was meant to open source code to the public and allow free use. To somehow read this narrative that indie developers are losing because others profit from their work is facile and not helpful.
> It’s unfortunate that you forgot to mention that these indie oss developers are highly sought after for independent contract work or direct hire positions.
For the most part, any developer who is good enough to create e.g. Redis and be hired could easily have skipped the "create Redis" part and just get hired in the first place, for far greater return on investment.
That's not even getting into the fact that leading a popular open source project is no guarantee of even being hired by those big companies, due to their interview processes. For example, Google rejected the creator of Homebrew, despite getting a lot of value out of the software, because of problems with whiteboard coding.
> For example, Google rejected the creator of Homebrew, despite getting a lot of value out of the software, because of problems with whiteboard coding.
Of course, it's important to note that that is his interpretation of the process. He did do a short stint at Apple at some point, too, so it's not like he didn't end up getting hired anyways.
Right, so everyone should be happy working for the "exposure" so they can be snapped up by Cloud Companies using the wealth created from hosting their OSS efforts who will then be put to work on strengthening their cloud monopolies.
I never said they should work for exposure or that they should be happy with this system.
Do the corporations creating products with OSS have a more positive impact on the world than when they purchased their software? If so, isn’t that beneficial to developers? Isn’t it empowering as a developer to know that your software powers businesses and markets? Why do developers contribute code in the first place?
If Indie oss developers provide say 49% of the contributions to open source project ought they expect the same representation or recompense as a project with 90% indie developer contributions?
More philosophically: After you create something, how long do you get to own or control that thing and how it is used?
How long do indie oss developers think they should be able to dictate the future of the project? Is corporate investment in open source actually welcome?
The topic and answers are on why it's unfortunate that Cloud Monopolies are reaping most of the wealth from OSS and why they're happy to keep the status quo which grows their monopolies bigger each passing year.
Never that there were no benefits - that was addressed in my initial statement. OSS does bring benefits to everyone using it where its made some products and services financially possible.
But it still stands that the majority of the wealth being created from OSS is going towards building Cloud Monopolies and a fraction of that wealth being used to finance their own proprietary and OSS efforts that will outspend and out compete Indie OSS efforts - the trend of which will go towards most people switching to use commercially-backed Cloud OSS software where it exists.
> It’s unfortunate that you forgot to mention that these indie oss developers are highly sought after for independent contract work or direct hire positions.
At a miniscule fraction of the value they created.
These people deserve to have so much money that they can simply work on open source for free, forever. I haven't seen anybody in that position yet.
This isn't even like a musician wherein some record company fronted capital, the companies benefiting from open source didn't front anything for these developers.
>At a miniscule fraction of the value they created.
Two things here:
1) In a sane business climate, you will never extract more than some fraction of the value you create. If you receive as much value as you create, then there is no purpose in anyone using whatever you've built, because they gain nothing from it.
2) If your goal is extracting as much of the created value for yourself as possible, open source software licenses are not designed in such a manner as to do so.
If you want to get the same benefits of proprietary software, write proprietary software. There's nothing wrong with doing so.
Open source software is like oxygen, big companies can burn really big fires and individuals can light their candle with it. We are all responsible for replenishing the oxygen in the air by planting trees. If the oxygen dies, so do the fires. Likewise companies have pinned their futures on OSS. They are investing.
As a Stallman fan, I belive most of us would agree with you that this is how things should be, but ultimately would dismiss your point as utopian because the primary objection is that big companies are not really investing in (F)OSS.
Like with the "Jeff Bezos doesn't like contributions to OSS" rumors, there's a general impression that outside some exceptions, companies are not really interested in keeping a healthy community even if they could ultimately benefit with it.
> big companies can burn really big fires and individuals can light their candle with it.
Big companies start as individuals. I don't think your comment effectively communicates your intent...maybe something about wealth distribution or how corporations are immoral. I don't completely disagree with these concepts.
I have been a follower of stallmanism for many years, and I think his voice is a crucial antidote to the all-money, all-control centralized software culture that developed as the early computer revolution encountered mainstream capitalism, but I think you are completely spot-on in your analysis.
Why is that unfortunate? It has enabled a cycle of OSS to user AND OSS to vendor to vendor enrichment to user...since you can always modify the code at will. The best of both worlds, until you get into that special "extension" problem that GPL3 tried to lock down.