taler-merchant-demos

software-libre-commercial-viability.html (17376B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="thirdparty" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>Software Libre and Commercial Viability
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/software-libre-commercial-viability.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Software Libre and Commercial Viability</h2>
 
 <address class="byline">by Alessandro Rubini
 <a href="#rubini"> <sup>[*]</sup></a></address>
 
 <p><i>Nov 12th 1998, published in February 1999</i></p>
 
 <p>Fortunately, Linus' project of world domination is going to come true
 fairly soon. The trend toward this goal can be verified by checking
 how the press is behaving towards GNU/Linux solutions, looking at how
 several educational entities are going to introduce free software in
 the schools and verifying its usual technical excellence.</p>
 
 <p>Today in 1998 (yes, it is still 1998 as I write), the most
 important job remaining, in my opinion, is propagating the social and
 commercial implications of free software. While I greatly appreciated
 Russell Nelson's article &ldquo;Open Source Software Model&rdquo; in
 the July issue of <cite>LJ</cite>, I feel the need to expand on the points
 he briefly touched.</p>
 
 <p>Please note that I'm not an expert in economics or politics. I'm
 just a build-it-yourself kind of technical guy whose discussion is
 based on his own experience in the battle for survival, in the hopes
 of helping someone else adapt to new environmental conditions. Some of
 these ideas have already been discussed with friends or on the Free
 Software Business mailing list,
 <a href="mailto:fsb-subscribe@crynwr.com">&lt;fsb-subscribe@crynwr.com&gt;</a>,
 which I joined after reading Russell's article.</p>
 
 <h3 id="sec1">Viability for Individual Consultants</h3>
 
 <p>The best feature of any computer system is flexibility&mdash;allowing
 users to tailor its behaviour to their own needs. This
 flexibility is often completely unknown to the general computer user,
 because proprietary software solutions tend to hide functionality
 behind a rigid external interface which denies any divergence from the
 expected behaviour&mdash;a <i>user's</i> behaviour.</p>
 
 <p>When adopting free software, users are able to discover the real
 power of computer systems. Today I talked with a commercial consultant
 who never thought that programs could be adapted to one's needs. He
 confessed his company has always acted the other way around&mdash;they
 adapted their needs to the software they use. Most users are victims
 of their software and don't even realize it.</p>
 
 <p>Educating the user base about the extendibility of software will
 open new markets to independent consultants, creating new employment
 opportunities. Every user has different needs and solving these needs
 often means calling for technical support from people who tailor or
 enhance the relevant software. While this is not even imaginable with
 proprietary programs, source availability allows any problem that
 might arise to be quickly solved and new features to be easily
 added. While you may think this would quickly lead to a <i>perfect</i>
 software package, individual needs are so diverse and specialized that
 a package can't satisfy everyone.</p>
 
 <p>For example, I and others wrote a program for a local physiology
 center to analyze data for a typical kind of experiment. During two
 years of use, the physicians found so many ways to enhance the program
 that it is now reported as better than the commercial solutions. The
 total of all fees they paid during these years reveals the program to
 be more expensive in the end than some of the commercial
 alternatives. This fact is not relevant to my clients, as they have
 exactly what they want and they know they can have more should the
 need arise. The program is obviously free software and other centers
 expressed interest in getting a copy.</p>
 
 <p>As more and more people are choosing free software to address their
 needs, I'm sure some software companies will try to demonize GNU/Linux
 and both the free software and the Open Source movements because they
 are losing their own market share. Such companies will probably try to
 demonstrate that IT employment is decreasing and that humankind is
 being damaged by the general adoption of free software. This whole
 argument is bogus; computers exist to be programmed, and the more you
 allow programming them, the more you build employment opportunities.
 If you count the number of people who offer free software consulting,
 you will greatly exceed any shrinkage of proprietary companies.
 Sticking to my previous example, the physiology lab hired my company
 to write the program, and other centers interested in the product are
 willing to hire a local consultant for installing, maintaining and
 enhancing our package. Did I say &ldquo;enhance&rdquo;? Isn't the
 program working? Yes, the program is working well, but there <i>is</i>
 room for enhancement of the product. The local lab decided to stop
 development &ldquo;because we must run our experiment rather than
 invent new software features.&rdquo;  As anyone knows, every program
 has a bug and a missing feature, and this is where we build our
 credibility: bugs <i>can</i> be fixed and features <i>can</i> be
 implemented.  As I suggested before, the more you make things
 programmable, the more they will be programmed.</p>
 
 <p>Why should there be more employment opportunities in IT than there
 are now? First of all, because free software users have more requests
 for new features than users of proprietary products do, as explained
 above. Next, because anyone can build her own professionalism without
 paying tributes to access the sources of information.  I built my own
 expertise by studying source code and trying things out on my own
 low-end PC. Now I am confident I can solve any problem my clients
 might have, and my clients know I can (provided I am given enough time
 to deal with the problem).</p>
 
 <p>Another critical point in addition to source availability is
 standardization on file formats, a field where proprietary products
 are revealing their worst features. Let's imagine an environment where
 every file format in the system was known: you could, for example,
 create indexes from any document that is produced, thus easing later
 retrieval. This can be accomplished off-line without any load on
 non-technical personnel.  Asynchronous reuse of data is &ldquo;rocket
 science&rdquo; for many users, because they are accustomed to programs
 that use proprietary file formats (and operating systems with no real
 multi-tasking or &ldquo;cron&rdquo; capabilities). As soon as free
 standards are adopted, users begin asking for customizations and are
 willing to pay for anything that will increase their productivity.
 Moreover, free standards guarantee that customers are not making the
 wrong bet, as they won't ever be stuck with unusable data if the
 software market changes.</p>
 
 <p>While the conventional model of software distribution concentrates
 all knowledge in a few companies (or one of them), open standards
 leverage technical knowledge to anyone willing to learn. Whereas a
 proprietary product can be supported only by a limited number of
 qualified consultants (whose number and quality is centrally managed),
 the number of consultants supporting a free software solution is
 virtually unlimited and the offer can quickly adapt to the request.</p>
 
 <p>In a world where computers are just tools to accomplish some other
 goals, easy customization and quick maintenance are basic requirements
 of power users. In my opinion, free software will quickly gain the
 trust it needs to be a real market phenomenon. As soon as you start to
 trust some free software products, you learn that they deserve more.
 GNU/Linux fans must be ready to offer support in order to fulfill the
 upcoming need for consultants.</p>
 
 <h3 id="sec2">Viability for Support Companies</h3>
 
 <p>Obviously, independent consultants don't cover all the needs of
 computer users. Several activities can't be handled by
 individuals. Red Hat and S.u.S.E. are demonstrating that creating and
 maintaining a distribution can be a good source of revenue even when
 the product is freely redistributable. Debian-based efforts are on the
 way, although less advanced&mdash;mainly because both Red Hat and
 S.u.S.E. bundled proprietary products with libre packages in order to
 survive while the market share was low, while Debian has always been
 completely detached from proprietary products, and still is.</p>
 
 <p>In addition to &ldquo;creating and packaging&rdquo; or
 &ldquo;collecting and packaging&rdquo; jobs, companies can specialize
 in technical support, covering the situations where computer systems
 are of critical importance. Big business realities using computer
 systems in their productive environment won't be satisfied with either
 the external consultant or the in-house technician. They need to rely
 on an external structure that guarantees round-the-clock operation of
 their technological aids.</p>
 
 <p>Even if GNU/Linux or any other operating system is demonstrated to
 be completely reliable, power users will need to rely on a support
 company as a form of insurance. The more important computers are for a
 production environment, the more people are willing to pay to be
 reassured that everything will go on working and to have someone
 &ldquo;responsible&rdquo; to call in case of any failure. Such a
 &ldquo;power user&rdquo; support contract could also include a
 provision for refunds in case of down time. Big support companies will
 be able to efficiently deal with it, and clients will be happy to pay
 high rates even if they never need to call for assistance.</p>
 
 <p>In short, I see no need for software companies to keep exclusive
 rights on their products; the support environment is big enough to
 offer good business positions in Information Technologies. Those who
 want to be at the top could use some of the revenue to pay for Free
 Software development, thus gaining access to the best software before
 anyone else and associating their name with software products. As a
 matter of fact, this practice is already pursued by the big
 distributions.</p>
 
 <h3 id="sec3">Viability for Education Centers</h3>
 
 <p>Needless to say, schools and universities have the best interest in
 teaching information technologies using free software tools. Due to
 its technical superiority, free software environments have more to
 offer to the students, but also need more technical knowledge to be
 proficiently administered. I see no money saved here in choosing Free
 operating systems over proprietary ones, but educational entities
 could better spend their money on hiring system administrators than on
 subsidizing some already-too-wealthy commercial software company.
 While my country, Italy, is stuck with a few rules that offer more
 support for buying things rather than for employing people, other
 countries are already moving in the right direction&mdash;Mexico and
 France, for example, have announced plans to use GNU/Linux in their
 public schools.</p>
 
 <p>One more point leads toward free software in education: when
 students get jobs, they prefer to use tools they learned at school in
 order to minimize extra learning efforts. This fact should lead
 colleges to teach only those tools not owned by anyone&mdash;those
 that are libre. Schools should teach proprietary software only if two
 conditions apply: no viable alternative is available, and the company
 that distributes such software <i>pays</i> the school for teaching its
 product. Paying someone for a product in order to advertising it for
 him is definitely nonsense.</p>
 
 <h3 id="sec4">Social Issues</h3>
 
 <p>A few social issues relate to choosing one software model over
 another one. Although I mark them as social, they have economic
 implications as well.</p>
 
 <p>
 While free software may not be cheaper than proprietary software if
 you bill for your own time, some environments use different rates in
 converting time to money. Most emerging countries have good
 intellectual resources but little money, and they usually have many
 not-so-new computers as well. Proprietary operating systems are
 unaffordable for them, but free solutions are viable and
 productive. Actually, the &ldquo;Halloween&rdquo; document supports my
 point by underlining that &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; is growing very fast in
 the Far East.  Charity organizations usually have this same
 environment&mdash;little money and a good amount of human
 resources. This leads straight to the free software model for any IT
 requirement.</p>
 
 <p>These ideas will probably suggest that free availability of
 information looks fairly leftist in spirit, as &ldquo;information to
 the masses&rdquo; looks quite similar to the old adage &ldquo;power to
 the masses.&rdquo; What is usually ignored is the strong rightist
 flavour of the free software movement. The free software arena is
 fiercely meritocratic and a perfect environment for free competition,
 where the laws of the market ensure that only the best ideas and the
 best players survive. Proprietary standards, on the other hand, tend
 to diminish competition by decreasing innovation and consolidating
 previous results.</p>
 
 <h3 id="sec5">Limits of the Free Software Model</h3>
 
 <p>Naturally, I'm aware that not every software package can easily be
 turned into free software.  I'm not talking about office
 products&mdash;I'm confident some good projects will supply this need,
 sooner or later.</p>
 
 <p>Rather, I'm talking about all environments where a strong
 competition exists for a product only loosely based on its software
 component. For example, industrial equipment might include a computer
 and some commodity hardware (a robot, custom I/O peripherals,
 <abbr title="Programmable logic controller">PLC</abbr>s, etc.); the
 software application hosted in the computer is a minor part of the
 whole, but its features greatly affect the overall value of the
 equipment. Producing and debugging such applications usually require
 huge investments; free redistribution of source code is thus prevented
 as a form of protection against competitors.</p>
 
 <p>Another meaningful example is cell telephones. They include a lot
 of software, even though this software is almost invisible to the end
 user, who perceives the device as a telephone and not a computer. Such
 software is the component that defines the overall capabilities of the
 device; because of its major functional role in the device it is
 strictly proprietary.</p>
 
 <p>Unfortunately, I see no easy way to liberalize this type of code.
 Although I don't care too much about cell phones (I don't use them :),
 I would really like to see free industrial applications because their
 technological content is usually worth reusing and adapting to new
 problems.</p>
 
 <div class="infobox">
 <hr />
 <p id="rubini">[*]
 Alessandro writes free software for a living and advocates free
 software for a mission. He hopes his upcoming child will keep off
 computers, recalling the good old times when such beasts where
 confined to their technical zoos. He reads e-mail
 at <a href="mailto:rubini@gnu.org">&lt;rubini@gnu.org&gt;</a>, trying
 to reply to everyone.</p>
 
 <p>Reprinted with permission of <cite>Linux Journal</cite>.</p>
 </div>
 </div>
 
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
 <div class="unprintable">
 
 <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
 the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
         replace it with the translation of these two:
 
         We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
         translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
         Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
         to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
         <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
         our web pages, see <a
         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
         README</a>. -->
 Please see the <a
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
 of this article.</p>
 </div>
 
 <p>Copyright &copy; 1998-2001 Alessandro Rubini</p>
 
 <p>Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire article are permitted
 in any medium provided this notice and the copyright notice are preserved.
 </p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
 $Date: 2021/09/22 09:19:58 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>