It appears to me that a lot of open-source software ("Open source 101,"
February) whether at the operating-system level (Linux) or the
application level, has been and is being written by volunteers.They have
helped create the basis for what then has become marketed products, and
therefore volunteerism is at the foundation of open-source product
retailing. From what I have read, without their efforts there would not
be much open-source software at all. Or, had the developers been
compensated the price of that software would be much different.
It appears, then, that a lot of professional work has been done for no
compensation and that situation forms the basis for this new category of
software, and, key to it all, its lower cost.
I would think that this is quite different from, say, Microsoft and the
other suppliers of software who pay and reward their employees for the
work they do in a professional atmosphere.
I am all for volunteerism in other areas. But depending on volunteers to
create something and then, in effect, exploiting that for the mass
market is quite another thing. One would have to think long and hard to
come up with an example of an industry of products for the mass market
that is based on a significant amount of continuous use of uncompensated
volunteer effort.
This lack of compensation is quite different from a company that goes
through start-up with a lot of uncompensated effort by key personnel but
where those officer-employees are later rewarded by the company through
stock ownership.
I believe that employees should be justly compensated for their work. I
also believe the cost to the user should reflect the professional work
that goes into the product. I would go so far as to state a principled
position against open source for the very reason that the products are
built on the foundation of uncompensated labor--however willingly that
labor was offered.
With that in mind the business model of traditional software
firms--professional pay for employees doing professional work--starts to
look to be the more principled of positions from the buyer-user
perspective. -- Larry DeVries, Eden Prairie, Minn., larrydev@earthlink.net
I've had the opportunity to chat with many Linux advocates about the
basis of their work, and the "volunteerism" of it. While I think you
have a point, that money is being made as a result of uncompensated
labor, I think there's an important element that you're forgetting: The
volunteers who work on open source have created a basis for products,
not a "product" per se. Companies like Red Hat take that basis and
develop products and services based on them that are then appreciated
by the user community. But for Red Hat to try to compensate those who
worked on that initial effort wouldn't be quite right. It's like paying
a farmer the same amount for seeds as you would for ripe vegetables.
The seeds may have been harvested by a volunteer collective, but it's
the farmer that put in the time to grow them into something edible. He
deserves the compensation, just as those who develop open source seeds
into something usable should be compensated.
I've never met a programmer yet who feels that Linux developers are
being taken advantage of--quite the opposite, usually. I'm sure that
some exist, but I think they're in the minority. Instead, it seems that
open source advocates embrace the volunteerism model because it gives
them the opportunity to build a better tech world, basically. They are
the Johnny Appleseeds of the movement, and I think they're unconcerned
if other people sell those apples long after they've gone onto other
fields. -- Elizabeth Millard, senior editor, ComputerUser
to start a discussion or ask a question, e-mail dan@computeruser.com. letters may be edited for
style, length, or content. no anonymous letters will be
published.
