
Money != Object - ksred
http://awesomistguy.com/blog/2012/12/4/money-object
======
padobson
I don't see why developers think they can't make money from an open source
project. There's always support and consulting related to the project that can
be sold. If the project gets lots of adoption, then there will likely be a few
well-payed speaking gigs in there too.

And if it's consumer-facing software that needs to be compiled or deployed,
then you can still sell it directly - giving your competitors access to your
source code does not guarantee defeat in the marketplace. There are many many
other variables that will determine if you win or not.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
I don't think anyone is saying you can't make money. It's just a lot more
theoretical and difficult. Then if you weigh that difficulty against a
possible moral judgment that perhaps making directly selling software isn't so
bad after all then maybe the question is not really a necessary one.

It's like on one side you have those saying "Look, making money of this
paradigm is not impossible. You can reinvent everything and turn it all upside
down and slog through and you might be able to make money and earn a living,
perhaps modest but hey." Then on the other you don't necessary have people
that disagree with that view just their view is something "Sure, I agree you
can do that. But there's nothing wrong with this so what's the matter?"

Usually, when people come up with all these ways to make money off of open
source (like well paid speaking gigs) they are taking a few top 1% examples
(like Linus) and not fully appreciating how much more either complex or
difficult such a business model is. I think the more common way that
programmers earn money from open source is to actually be funded to work on
such projects from, usually, large companies that have made money in a variety
of ways. Obviously, you can come up with counterexamples but my point is to
keep in mind the likelihood of success.

Anyway, I'm certainly not against open source, I just don't think that program
and earn money of said work are immoral or only able to be saved if they stop
selling their software in that sense try to build a corollary business a part
from the code.

~~~
dllthomas
_"I just don't think that program[ming] and earn[ing] money [for] said work
[is] immoral[.]"_

This is a straw-man (unintentional, I presume). Even rms sold copies of Emacs
once upon a time. No one objects to earning money for programming; they object
to some of the restrictions we put in place in an attempt to make it easier to
do that. If you don't agree that those restrictions are harmful, or think they
are sufficiently outweighed by other factors, fine; but saying proprietary
software is clearly fine simply because you don't object to programmers being
paid is incomplete, confused, or dishonest.

------
reedlaw
I'd love to see more analysis of how big open source projects stay funded.
Blender 3D is a great example of an amazing app that rivals thousand-dollar
software packages and regularly produces open movies. I think I saw Google was
one of their sponsors on the last open movie. I dream of working full-time on
something like that (with a sustainable level of income of course ;).

~~~
dinkumthinkum
Right and Google makes money in a way most of us (meaning the norm) feel is a
little smarmy or not ideal at best. Google just has a great brand of being hip
(even if they are Bay Area hipsters of yesteryear) that "makes it ok."

------
dinkumthinkum
What this post is talking about and what is in the video are somewhat
different issues. The video is about whether what we choose to do with our
life, vocationally, should be driven by money while the post seems to be more
about doing software for free. However, it's not really an RMS style argument.
I always wonder why so many programmers act like we are all just drug dealers
or gun runners, immorally making money from software we write. Do you think
carpenters feel this way? It's one thing if you hold to RMS moral decision,
whether it's an infantile one or not is another matter, but even if his view
was the morally correct view, I think I'd choose the life of the gun runner
anyway. :)

~~~
reedlaw
I don't feel charging money for services or software is in any way immoral.
But all other things being equal, I would rather work on a free, open source
project than proprietary software. It just feels better to provide something
useful to a wider audience at no cost than to produce something for a single
client or a selective group of paying customers.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
Well, maybe you say you don't think it is immoral but it does have some sort
of bad connotation with it for you, perhaps quite a strong one? It's a strange
thing, right. Without money most software wouldn't exist or have much of a
reason to exist. But what I was getting at is in our world, the world of
programmers, there is so much self-loathing about making money off of one's
labor that doesn't exist in the vast majority of professions. Unless the whole
world goes the way of Gene Rodenberry, how would these web apps be hosted and
how would people have the actual hardware to run applications? I don't see
anything wrong with one that 1) programs and 2) does not take a vow of
poverty. Just my thoughts. :)

------
olive_
But most of the time people need money to do what they really want to do. I
totally agree that money does not buy happiness, but if you do not have money,
you will probably be unhappy.

~~~
ksred
And that is where the line to tread is, between being happy and not being
broke. Happiness coupled with money would be the ideal :)

------
jrogers65
A few interesting studies have been conducted on money and happiness. Here's a
summary of one of them -
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090907142345.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090907142345.htm)

------
quarterto
!(Money instanceof Object).

~~~
michaelochurch
!Money.isInstanceOf[AnyRef]

