There’s a fundemental problem with the Open Source Software movement, a dirty little secret that no one likes to talk about.  Open Source software is rife with intellectual propety theft.

In my opinion, the basis for industry wide Open Source really started with Linux, and as the story goes, Linus Torvalds was in love with the Unix operating system and decided to reverse engineer the whole thing. . .every single line of code was written from scratch so they say.  But that throws out the value of the design work.  Awk and Grep work a certain way by design.  Does that design have any value?  Perhaps no code was taken, but the data formats, structure, functionally, and syntax were all copied.  As a software architect, I know first hand how much time goes into deciding these things.  In fact, it is the correct planning, design, and architecture that allows a system to grow and stand the test of time.  This design and architecture was ripped-off wholesale . . . and the original engineers who created these tools have been forgotten (tip of the hat to the real creator of Grep, Ken Thompson , who along with Dennis Ritchie really created Unix.  They didn’t do it for free either.

So the design, function, metaphore, and workflow of a software product are the defining characteristics, but this is exactly what is ‘copied’ by the Open Source movement for the vast bulk of their offerings. For example, the ‘Lasso’ image manipulation effect was invented and belongs to Adobe/, not the people at GIMP, but there it is in the GIMP toolbox, along with a whole slew of other Adobe patented technologies.

The ‘Code’ is only part of the story, and the Open Source Movement seems to think that design and architecture just fall from the sky like a soft spring rain. . . . if only it were so.

So that brings us back to Dontationware . . . giving away software but expecting that satisfied users will pay.  This is like those “Honor Snack” systems that some people use, but putting a coin box next to some packaged snacks or cans of soda, and those that take, pay.  Do such systems actually work?  The answer depends on the culture of the people involved.  ”Anti-social” type cultures might not work, as people might think that as they take, they don’t really need to pay, or are above paying.  ”Social” cultures, where the people understand that they need to work together, do in fact work as the people will pay as they take.  So this calls into question, what kind of culture are we living in today?  What is the current  environment like for tying to make a living based on Donationware? 

There are other ways to use Freeware/Donationware to boot-strap success that don’t involve getting paid for the software today, but rather involve dominating a market niche with the hopes of capitalizing on it in the future.  Some have done this, some have failed.  There are a whole range of Internet based applications that are free to use, and become increasingly important to the user, most notably the Social Networking phenomenon.  The creators of these platforms have walked away with millions, but their companies have yet to turn a dime of profit.  Can that continue indefinately?  Who pays for the servers?  Who pays for the bandwidth?  Who pays for the small army of developers?  It’s not the market, so who is it? 

It’s the Investors . . . that’s who. 

Is the force of peer approval more powerful than the profit motive? Is that even a justified statement, as is it peer approval which drives Open Source Software development?  I don’t personally know any of these guys that are writing huge chunks of code to just give away.  I know many programmers very well, but all of them work for a living and when they get done programming for money, they just don’t have it in them to sit and code for hours more for free.  That they exist is certain, just look at the OSS movement.  Maybe they are all independently wealthy people or programmers who hit it big with stock options in the late 90′s and are looking to give back.  Who ever they are, my hats are off to them, but I don’t think open source software will ever be as good as commercial software. 

It’s just logical; who has more incentive to work harder and produce a better product?

A) A team of guys making six figure salaries, work together in nice offices with top of the line equipment, and who each get a 15% performance bonus if they do the work well.

OR

B) A team of guys spread out over half the world who might or might not feel like chipping in their part of the code that day working on patchwork networks of cobbled together servers? 

For me, the answer is clear, but it poses the question, what about Donation based software?  That will be the topic of my next post.

These words ring true and often I’ve used it as a tag on a forum post.  Are people who try to advance humanity unreasonable?  By Shaw’s definition, the answer is yes. 

What is unreasonable?  Webster’s has this to say:

Main Entry:

This brings about the question, what is reason?  Going back to Webster, we find:

¹rea·son

My opinions of blogging have changed over time.  My first thoughts of it were centered on the idea that it was an egocentric device.  That was until I started reading them, and seeing them being used for dissemination of information in ways I hadn’t fully considered.  Now it seems that blogging is the way to most actively participate on this new global conversation. 

There are so many things to talk about that are important for many, it’s hard to know where to start.  I think Marshall McLuhan would have approved of starting with an investigation into the medium itself:  What drives blogging, how is it delivered, who consumes it, and why?

 Social media and the so-called Web 2.0 technologies are ushering in change, with two major forces in play: Empowerment of the Individual and Fragmentation of Masses.  The second force, Fragmentation of the Masses, is a prime enabler of the first force, and together creates a resonant harmonic that builds on itself for effecting greater and greater change.  Let’s look at each of them in turn:

Fragmentation of the Masses

When I grew up there were three major television networks in the USA.  These were ABC, NBC, and CBS.  There was also PBS, but they didn’t have anything close to the production values offered by the big three, and neither did any of the regional television stations.  The Big Three dominated the airwaves and when they broadcast their messages, it was a fair guarantee that everyone in the nation would eventually hear about it (unless they were living in the back-woods).  This is certainly no longer the case.  The advent of the Internet and further driven by Web 2.0 technologies, social media are creating segmented and fragmented markets that are growing more niche specific every day, and are growing so plentiful that an individual can spend all of their allotted ‘media time’ on these niche sources and not be exposed to any main stream media at all.  These fragments of the old mass media monolith fall off never to be reattached (unless there is widespread fascist dictatorship).  Where does this lead? 

Empowerment of the Individual

It lets an individual who heretofore never had a viable audience gain one.  It allows an individual with no direct access to experts, access to same.  Smaller communities of people bound by common interest much more than geographic location forms the fabric of these new forums, with questions being fielded from all comers.  In such, it enables the formerly voiceless to have a voice, if albeit to ever smaller crowds of ever more like minded folks.  Micro-markets might be a good name for these newly emerging entities.

Fifteen Minutes of Fame

When Andy Warhol coined his term “15 minutes of fame“, Mass Media was the most prevalent media.  If you say that broadcast on a major media channel would get you 15 minutes of fame, by 50 million people, that’s 750,000,000 (750 million) fame minutes.  Now, if you become famous in a micro-market of 100,000 people, you get 500 times the fame time to equal the same number of fame minutes, so your 15 minutes can turn into 7500 minutes of micro-market fame, which would be enough to raise anyone the status of micro-market celebrity. . . which is in fact what we are beginning to notice in the blogosphere.  Fifteen minutes ain’t what it used to be, Andy.

So, going back to the original thought of blogging as egocentric device, it turns out that creating a blog CAN become an conduit to micro-fame, and thereby flame the ego fire, but that’s just a side effect and not the real reason people blog . . . right?