Richard Monson-Haefel's Blog

Open Source Developer: Will Work for Food!

UPDATED: January 23rd, 2004

I've received a lot of mail and seen a lot of postings about this blog entry. Some of it has been supportive and some of it has been �. Well, not. The one thing that is common to all but a few of the responses is that people have misunderstood my point. This is good evidence that I did a poor job of articulating it � something writers struggle to avoid. Anyway, I offer the following as a clarification.

Here is the point of the blog:

The majority of open source developers are not paid for their contributions. I'm not talking about high profile core contributors; I'm talking about all the other people who make open source a success. What pains me is that some of the few who make a living doing "professional open source" try to paint the picture that everyone is making money. That's not true, and its not why open source works.

Open source works because it gives developers freedom of choice and expression. Developers get to choose which projects they work on and therefore the direction of their own technical growth. Developers get to choose what to contribute and how much. It's about freedom of choice.

People give all kinds of reasons for doing open source that are simply variations of the freedom of choice theme. For example, developers feel a need to "give back" to their community. Well open source makes that possible because it gives you the freedom to contribute code, bug fixes and documentation. Another reason given, is that people get involved in open source to "build their resume", which is just another freedom of choice. Open source lets you build practical experience in just about any area of software you are interested in � ask your employer if you can start doing game development on their time and see what they say.

I have worked as a professional open source developer, and sometimes I've been paid for my work. Today, I'm not paid to work on open source but I continue to contribute as best I can because it gives me the freedom to work on those things I find interesting.

Open source does offer the potential to make money - No doubt about it - but that's not why open source is successful. It's simply a benefit of the freedoms open source offers us as individuals. It's not about ego; it's about choice. It's about fulfillment and creative expression. Money is great. I'm all for it, but its not why I work on open source. I could make a lot more money working for a vendor, but then I wouldn't be able to choose what and when and how I do my work.

The simile that I gave of a "fine artist" was meant to illustrate the motivation of the average open source developer. I have a few friends that are artists. Some are commercial artists and others are non-commercial artists, sometimes called "Fine artists". My commercial artist friend has never had a lot of choice in the medium he works in or the subject of his work or even the creative direction. He does what the customer wants, which is how most successful business work. My non-commercial artist friends, the "fine artists", work in any medium they please, on any subject, in any way they want. The motivations of the fine artist are intrinsically the same as those of the open source developer � freedom of choice and expression.

Paradoxically, freedom always comes at a cost. You must give something up, usually something tangible like money, lives, comfort, and such things to have freedom. Most open source developers do not make money doing open source work (contributing patches, bug reports, helping others on the mailing list, etc.), but they do benefit. They have freedom.

*************************************************************************************************
Oringinal Blog Entry: Janaury 22nd, 2004

I have a friend who works in commercial software and makes a pretty good living � actually a real good living. He finds the "whole open source thing" quite incomprehensible. Why on earth would you waste hours of your own time creating software without pay? My wife wonders the same thing.

The truth is: The difference between open source developers and commercial developers is the pretty much the same as the difference between a starving fine artist and a fat and happy commercial artist. The commercial artist, if she is any good, is probably paid a decent amount for creating logos, advertising, album covers and such things for someone else. A person who creates fine art, on the other hand, isn't likely to make more than a pittance even if they are lucky enough to get a show. While it's true that that some fine artists make it big, this is relatively rare when you look at the whole population. So why do people choose to create fine art, rather than commercial art? Freedom. Fine artists get to work when they want, create what they want, take credit for their work, and in the end enjoy the public scrutiny of their peers.

The same is true of open source developers. While a few make really good money selling consulting and training and other services, the vast majority of open source developers don't make anything. But they do have freedom. Open source developers can choose which projects they will work on and how and when they'll do the work. In the open source world no one will tell you what projects you must work on, or when you should work, or how much you should do. That's up to you. For the most part you are free to be as creative with your code as you like � if your code is good it will be adopted. If its sucks it won't.

So the price of freedom of expression for most, if not all, open source developers is � well poverty. Ok, that's a bit of an exaggeration since a lot of open source developers have a day job, but that's just as telling. To do open source, you have to have a day job. You can't expect open source to feed your family or even your cat for that matter. As I said there are exceptions, but most open source developers do it for the love of writing software. While commercial software developers do a great job of feeding their families, open source developers do a better job of feeding their minds. In the end, you have to ask yourself which is more important: The things you own or freedoms you have.

Comments

• Some other reasons to be an open source developer
  Hi Richard,
  I've read with pleasure you latest blog... but I feel that some motivation is missing.
  I am an open source developer, and yes, the reasons you cited are important to being one.
  But they're not the only ones.
  I for one chose to become open source developers because I'm
  and open source user (I don't use a single piece of commercial software at home), so I feel like giving back something.
  And also because open source allows me to choose something that will elevate my knowledge about the language, libraries and architecture, that is, try to solve, by collaborating with other
  people, problems that the software house I'm working in won't try to afford because too risky.
  So here I am, collaborating with other developers coming from
  all around the world, trying to create a GIS library in Java at
  the Geotools project (www.geotools.org). To give you an idea, something like MapObjects for Java, that ESRI sells for 5000$
  for each developer license... if we where thinking about building something for selling, nothing would have come out at all. Open source projects does not only create software, also create better developers, architect, and better coworkers,
  because to make an open source project work you have to show respect and make your point based on facts, not on your position in the organization chart.
  Just my 2 cents

  Best regards
  Andrea Aime

  Posted by: aaime on January 22, 2004 at 07:10 AM

• How many artists are really starving?
  I am curious to know how many Open Source Developers are actually paid for their work? I�m thinking of all the IBM guys that work on Eclipse, or all the stuff that is donated to Apache by companies. I wonder if anyone has ever done a survey. The results might be interesting.
  

  Posted by: johnreynolds on January 22, 2004 at 08:26 AM

• Getting paid
  Mozilla, Apache, Eclipse, etc... a lot of these are foundations that get their money from various member organizations. I don't work for any of them, but surely many of their developers get paid... In these cases it is the member organizations that are dishing out money without directly "getting paid" in return. Of course these organizations have their reasons too for doing this, but this motivation is perhaps different from the "artist" motiviation you portray.

  Posted by: kenlars99 on January 22, 2004 at 08:39 AM

• hmm
  what you're suggesting when I read between the lines is that all closed or commercial software is by definition created by second class programmers and therefore of inferior quality.

  Thank you for the insult.

  Posted by: jwenting on January 22, 2004 at 12:01 PM

• hmm
  I think that what we was saying between the lines is this:

  Projects that you work on because of your own abmitions are generally of a higher calibur than projects you work on because someone is paying you for it.

  He wasn't calling commercial programmers second rate, he was saying that the contraints of commercial development often lead to second-rate programs, where the freedom of an open-source project could have developed something better.

  Posted by: mhall on January 22, 2004 at 12:24 PM

• Don't confuse "Fine Art" with "Good Art"
  In this blog I use the term "Fine Art" only with regard to the motivation for the artist. Fine Art has a few different definitions, but in this case I mean Art that is created for ones own satisfaction, rather than for a commercial objective.

  Please keep in mind that this only a simile not a metaphor, so I'm saying there are similarities in the motivations but not in the quality. I've done both commercial and open source development and I see good and bad in both areas.

  I also have friend who create fine art and others who create commercial art. Their motives are very different, but that has nothing to do with the quality of their work.
  

  Posted by: monsonhaefel on January 22, 2004 at 12:28 PM

• But what about those that wont to do the NEXT BIG THING
  I thnk you missed one aspect in your comparision.

  what about the guys who dont write open source code for the sake of "freedom" or "who just like writing code" but write because they see this thing as the next big thing and will take them out of the loop (of going to work for making a living)

  Posted by: njuneja on January 22, 2004 at 02:16 PM

• Some other reasons to be an open source developer
  I'll definitely second that, and add some.

  I am a successful commercial developer, who burns the 'midnight oil' on open source development.

  Why? When I could be enjoying my liesure?

  Because I want to leave a legacy; possibly to help the community.

  Now that my basic needs are met, (no pun intended) I feel that for me not to give something back would be selfish. Besides, I have two children, and I want them to grow up in a world with even more software options than I had. I worry that without oss they may end up with much less.

  I spent more than five years developing my latest project. I could have 'milked' it and made a tidy profit. Were I greedy, I probably could have patented it.

  I could also be run over by a bus tomorrow.

  It's the best work of my life, and it's free, right here on java.net.

  John
  https://cajo.dev.java.net

  Posted by: cajo on January 22, 2004 at 03:34 PM

• Open vs. free
  I don't really get most open source efforts myself. One gentlemen talks about creating an open source tool to replace a $5000 tool. Well and good, but his pro-bono efforts, if successful, will put a big crimp in the paycheck of those doing it for a living.

  In a nutshell, if you create free open source in your spare time that competes with commercial products, you're efforts are helping put someone out of a job. If walked into your office and told your boss I'll do your job for free in my spare time, odds are your value to the company just fell substantially.

  Now, one thing I rarely hear distinguished is open vs. free. I'm certainly in favor of source being available and modifiable for if you've bought the product.

  Whether or not the use of the product is free is entirely another deal.

  I can't really complain if someone wants to donate to society at large, that's a good thing. The inherent problem with donating software is that you're not donating to a particular entity that needs it, but also to the monopolies of the world that'll just use your efforts and give nothing back.

  Posted by: ckessel on January 22, 2004 at 03:50 PM

• even van gogh had to work to get food
  Somehow some people are reading your text wrong and feel insulted, feel sorry for them,hope i didn't insult anyone there :) ,but even van gogh had to work to get food, wich didn't make him less than how he was seen at that time, hehe
  there's so much more passion & joy involved with the open source stuff : from me for you :D(and just because/any reason)
  however if someone is helped by some development, wether one is paid for that or not is not important then, right?
  The possibility to enhance,evolve, where even others can build on that as well, is.

  Posted by: duude on January 22, 2004 at 04:05 PM

• hmmm interesting but...
  being an open source developer does not mean that you are a communist, starving "artist".

  You're missing a really really important point as to why open source is viable commercially - co-opetition.

  For example, company A and company B are competitors in the same industry. Currently both companies pay for proprietary software X. In the realm of co-opetition, company A and company B (and companies C, D, E, F, G) would both benefit if they pooled their technical resources to create open source application Z. Application Z would be low cost (from the shared efforts of all these companies - but not free) and it wouldn't be tied to one company - so there is no vendor lock in and the software becomes a standard... I can go on and on with the economic benefits... but my point is starving artists are not the only ones contributing... and in the future more "fat, commercial" developers will join them
  

  Posted by: pulse1014 on January 22, 2004 at 04:34 PM

• hmm
  "Projects that you work on because of your own abmitions are generally of a higher calibur than projects you work on because someone is paying you for it."

  A second-rate programmer will produce second-rate programs whether they're working on their own projects or commercial projects. However, same second-rate programmer would benefit from other programmers involved in a project, open-source or commercial.
  

  Posted by: glenpop3 on January 22, 2004 at 06:16 PM

• Open vs. free
  Excuse me, but I think you got it all wrong.

  You claim that by writing an Open Source alternative to a $5000 software I'm helping in making the commercial software developers unemployed? What a bunch of cr@p!!

  If I, in my spare time, am able to develop a competing software, even better that the $5000 commercial alternative, the _they_ deserve to get out of business. Commercial software has damaged the industry like you have no idea. You have mediocre software selling for astronomic ammounts of money, do those companies deserve every buck? Hell, no. Just because they have a product on a market the used to govern doesn't mean they have a godsend right to that.

  Every commercial software company should be pushing the boundaries, but given the current state of IP (where you license the software, ie, you sell a right to use a given ammount of copies of the software) the companies keep selling the same canned products, mass produced, becoming less of a technology company than a reseller one. Open Source software challenges that model. If you want to sell software then make damn sure it will not be surpassed by some application made by a student in his spare time. If your application lags behind then make sure you develop a better one.

  Posted by: bigjocker on January 23, 2004 at 07:46 AM

• hmm
  I've participated on open source projects but stopped when I got burned by the project maintainers taking the contributed code and running with it.
  The project is now a commercial product to which we didn't even get a binary license (let alone a source license).

  Posted by: jwenting on January 23, 2004 at 12:52 PM

• Open vs. free
  I certainly won't argue the IP/patent stuff is a tradgedy killing the industry. That's separate from my stated concern.

  I also won't argue if you create a better product, the old company deserves to go under.

  I will argue the economic benefits of open source though. If you and your 43 closest friends create something in your spare time for FREE, then you're not incurring the same costs to generate the software that a commercial company does and thus not competing on level ground.

  If you didn't have a real job, you simply couldn't afford to do this open-source project for free and survive. You're effectively using the money from your real job to bankroll the time/money you're putting into the "open-source" job.

  Say I make my living mowing lawns, $10 a lawn. I work hard, I fill a need. Now Engineer Bob's got a good day job and decides to form "open mowing" group. He and 5 friends want to give back to their community and offer to mow all lawns for free. Mowing is basically effort/time, not much capital cost there as everyone's got a lawn mower.

  So, I'm out of a job, my day job and source of income are gone. Bob and his 5 friends only had to give up a small portion of their time, but it was my livelihood.

  Software isn't much different, mostly time, low capital cost (computers are cheap).

  Now, if Bob and the "open mowing" group had gone specifically to folks that couldn't afford to have their lawns mowed, that's a very different thing. Aiding someone who couldn't otherwise mow their lawn. Or perhaps serving a market that I just couldn't afford to service (the $5/lawn crowd, where it costs me too much in gas/maintenance to mow that cheaply).

  That's where my concerns lie with are free open source. You can't give the results of your efforts (software) to just those that are truly deserving/needy. You're helping those in need and simultaneously harming those that served the rest of the poplulation.

  Posted by: ckessel on January 23, 2004 at 01:53 PM

• Open vs. free
  It seems as if you have some knowledge about what drives business. I see that from your mowing lawn example.

  So why does the Open concept not appeal to you? It drives competition! If your product can be beat in the market by the open source movement, why not? Then there is probably something wrong with your efforts. Are you not getting paid? Should you not take pride in your work if there are people of companies paying for your product?

  I think it is a beutiful thing! We are now starting to see some great products developed by some "starving artists".

  Posted by: geow on January 24, 2004 at 07:48 AM

• Another reason to be an OS developer
  Another reason to be an open source developer is that your work has a greater chance of seeing the light of day. During the dot.com bubble I worked on two large projects for a total of three years. Both evaporated into the ether. All of my work from that time is either on a shelf somewhere or deleted completely.

  As an open source developer your code belongs to yourself and, if you choose, the whole world. What better way to ensure that your work will benefit others? (...and yourself...)

  Posted by: gbarton on January 25, 2004 at 03:10 PM

• Open vs. free
  It drives competition if it's on equal footing. There's just no realistic way a company that pays developers can compete with an open group that has unpaid developers.

  Open source's unpaid developers are hardly starving artists, they're largely highly paid engineers doing this on the side.

  Open source quality isn't really this issue, some products are really great. As with my mowing example though, these people creating this "great" product for free are ruining the lives of those that do it for a living.

  I would feel a certain amount of guilt using my priviledged position as a paid engineer, purposely working as a volunteer to put an engineer in another industry out of a job.

  I don't really have a qualm with things being open, it's a beautiful thought, everyone working and giving it to humanity, to be distirbuted fairly. Sadly, it's not an ideal world and thus you have to be aware of who your own idealism impacts.

  If I were to work on open source, I'd probably pick things that the commercial industry largely ignores.

  Posted by: ckessel on January 25, 2004 at 08:49 PM

• Another reason to be an OS developer
  I've worked on several projects during the bubble, for several customers (being employed as a contractor was fun in those days).

  There's only one project that was meant to see the light of day and didn't, and that one because the company went bust.
  I still have the sources for it though and may well do something with them at some point (vital parts I created during my spare time with the initial intent of maybe open sourcing them at some point, might yet do that and maybe with the entire app).

  There were some more small jobs that didn't reach deployment but weren't meant to (they were demos and proof of concepts, things you are unlikely to find an open source group do for publication either).

  In contrast, on the largest OS project I worked on I was badly burned when the maintainers made a run with the code and took it commercial, cutting me off from everything I'd written for them and not even giving me a license for the product as a thank you.

  Posted by: jwenting on January 27, 2004 at 06:56 AM

• OSS developers vs. OSS organisations
  Agree with Richard's points here on motivation for an OSS developer to work on open source. But IMHO, most popular large open-source projects are funded by organisations/companies. This is where there is a difference in the motivation. This is a pure commercial undertaking (decision). Though there is nothing wrong with this, it is the hypocricy that surrounds it that is a trifle irritating.

  More at: http://www.jroller.com/comments/rameshl/Weblog/how_real_is_open_source
  

  Posted by: rameshl on February 02, 2004 at 07:22 PM

• geocities, attendance control, cnlogistic, fingerprint authentication, garment manufacturers, winrelocation, winbill, 租车,

  Posted by: winrelocation on August 16, 2007 at 07:44 AM

• wow power leveling
  wow powerleveling
  wow power leveling
  wow gold
  wow items
  feelingame.com
  wow tips
  Most Valuable WOW Power Leveling Service
  wow power leveling faq
  cheap wow power leveling
  wow power leveling
  wow powerleveling
  wow power lvl

  Posted by: wowleveling3 on December 13, 2007 at 10:03 PM

• 网络营销软件
  网络营销软件
  网络营销软件
  群发软件
  群发软件
  ---
  群发软件
  网络营销软件
  论坛群发软件
  网站排名软件
  群发软件
  推广小助手破解版
  论坛群发软件
  网站排名软件
  群发软件
  推荐给你很好的群发软件和信息群发软件和供求群发软件
  推荐给你很好的群发软件和信息群发软件和供求群发软件博客群发软件网络营销软件网络营销软件
  网站排名软件网站排名软件网站优化软件信息群发软件信息群发软件信息群发软件论坛群发软件网站推广软件网站推广软件博客群发软件博客群发软件
  群发软件
  网络营销软件
  网站推广软件
  群发软件群发软件博客群发软件论坛群发软件网络营销软件论坛群发软件
  信息群发软件推广软件网站推广软件网络营销软件网站推广软件群发软件网站排名软件网站推广软件博客群发软件论坛群发软件群发软件网站排名软件网站推广软件博客群发软件论坛群发软件
  网站排名软件
  博客群发软件
  网站排名软件
  网站推广软件
  群发软件信息群发软件
  免费论坛群发软件
  论坛群发软件
  网站排名软件
  免费博客群发软件
  网站推广软件

  群发软件
  博客群发软件
  网站排名软件
  网站推广软件
  群发软件信息群发软件
  免费论坛群发软件
  论坛群发软件
  网站排名软件
  免费博客群发软件
  博客群发软件
  信息群发软件
  论坛群发软件
  信息群发软件
  博客群发软件
  qq群发软件
  邮件群发软件
  博客群建软件
  企业名录搜索软件
  信息群发软件
  邮件群发软件
  论坛群发软件
  博客群发软件
  网站推广软件
  网络营销软件
  全能营销破解版
  网络营销软件
  论坛群发软件
  论坛群发软件
  论坛群发软件
  网络营销软件
  信息群发软件
  信息群发软件
  信息群发软件
  群发软件
  论坛群发软件
  

  Posted by: sun98989 on December 30, 2007 at 05:12 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.