Why do programmers write apps and then make them free

As two other datapoints, the Minecraft dev has stated he will open source his game when sales die down, i.e. he has no use for keeping it closed anymore. It's similar with the Wolfire group who have open sourced Lugaru and will probably open source Overgrowth some time after it's finished.

I've never really understood not sharing ideas (source code in this case) if it doesn't harm you in any way. It reminds me of classmates who refuse to discuss an assignment or share their ideas. It always seems there is a certain fear that their ideas will be "stolen" or that others are not worthy of them.

I can somewhat understand long-term cost-benefit analysis. My classmates might be right in thinking that others might cheat off them or exploit their ideas. More cynically, allowing others to fail might give you better job prospects. However, it doesn't seem that releasing your source code would have harmed you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to make some assumptions about what you just said. You say that you don't write the software for profit(presumably, you don't plan doing so in the future either). Your main objection is that other people will have access to your "years of hard work, [and] research". Consequently, you fear that others will develop other software based on your work.

You appear to be a generous and helpful person by providing the program, and if you really have no commercial interest in your project, I have troubles understanding why you would care. Is it because you want acknowledgement?

Please forgive me if I angered you (based on your post, you really don't seem to like this question). However, I just can't understand your philosophy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

That being said, as an open-source developer (SumatraPDF reader) I have perfectly rational reasons to open-source my code.

Open-source app is a better marketing tool for my professional skills than just a free app. When I apply for a job, a potential employer can not only look at the final product but also at the quality of my code and that counts.

I also write free and open-source for the karma, I just get more of it than you because I provide more value to the world. People can not only use the final product of my work but I can also help them write their own products. I'm not sure if you thought about it, but your position on "doing it for the good of humanity" is inconsistent. You want brownie points but chose an arbitrary cut off point.

Other people can help me. I started as a solo developer on SumatraPDF and I've gotten significant contributions from others. The software is much better for it and has features that I know I wouldn't implement.

As to the downside you mentioned.

For me, the ability of other people to use my code in their own work is a feature, not a bug, so that boils to the difference of opinion.

I haven't noticed the effect of "diminishing attribution". If anything, the attribution I get increases. First, pretty much every open-source license requires attribution. Second, my software has been improved by other people but since I'm the original developer and host the website for it, I benefit from that (not because I try to hide the fact (quite the contrary) but because most people won't look at svn checkins to see who did what work and will naturally associate most of the credit with the guy who's the face of the project).

Apple made it to easy for me to make money doing this, now I write iPhone apps, have just as much fun, and made quite a bit of money at one stage.

I understand the reasoning, but I must say your fears are unfounded. The thousands of open source applications out there are the proof of that. There are a number of cases of GPL violations, and BSD licensed software being used in closed source applications without any attribution, but these are not the majority, and it doesn't seem to impact whatever recognition the original authors receive.

If you write anything worth ripping off in such a manner, you will most certainly receive recognition for it.

However, in this day and age I can say that free software without sources raises a flag with me. I won't use any of it because it usually means the author has something to hide, either the suckage of the code or something worse.

It's not about what you should or shouldn't do, you're free to do what you want; it's just about being consistent with yourself. It's like helping the old lady cross the street because "it's a good thing to do", but then refusing to help the old man cross the street because "why should I give my services for free?".

In fact, it's the default that I make everything open source. I only not do open source when my client tell me not to.

Well, I do it because I follow the golden rule. Other than that, I don't care less unless it is taking material wealth from me. There's no evidence that I can account for that actually said I am losing money.

However, in doing this, you'll have to protect your code from the unscrupulous by investigating all other commercial competitors projects, and if you find someone "stealing" your code, you'll have to employ a lawyer. Both are expensive propositions.

So basically what I understand is that you don't release your code because you don't have the resources to protect it from thieves.

Thus my question: if my assumption is true in that you are reluctant to share code because you lack to resources to protect it from thieves, would you be willing to share your code if someone explicitly asked you and signed the equivalent of an NDA?

On behalf of your millions of users who don't say very much but rely on it daily, I'd like to say a heartfelt thank you and reaffirm that you're perfectly entitled to do exactly as you please with your own software.

Bear in mind this is an entrepeneurial forum, so many here are focussed on trying to monetising something that delivers value (nothing wrong with that). You've done the hard part and they can't see why you don't take it further.

No software is risk-free, regardless of the licensing terms. One big risk is you'll find out, after weeks or months using the thing, that it doesn't do all that you want it to do, and getting it to do the rest is costly and time-consuming.

> Then the killer question: If the answer to any of the above is "no" because of our free software, "Who are you going to call?"

Literally millions of businesses do well using Linux, Apache, PHP, Perl, Python, Django, Ruby, Rails, MySQL, etc without having problems. (My answer to that question is "do a Google search on the problem and find the solution thast way).

> The risk to your business and its stakeholders is simply not worth the couple of bucks saved on free software.

If you want personal support for your software, you're going to pay a good deal more than $2 for it. And paid-for technical support is available for open source software too, if that's what you want.

Having no rights to the source code leaves you in the cold if any of the above happens.

I am going to pay for support for any software open or closed source. However, with open source, I can almost always get some support.

Everything about your pricing model is really a kind of fiction. The charge up front, the license, everything. It's really a support business, pure and simple. Oracle and IBM know this, and so do their customers.

And thus the business proposition as a developer comes down to:

1. If I'm in the support business, writing and selling my own software places my customers in thrall to me. I have a monopoly on support. Of course, that means they have a certain risk since I'm the sole vendor. And I have to develop the software and compete with other vendors just to get a customer for my support business, which has a certain risk.

2. If I'm in the support business, supporting free software outsources the part of my business that isn't my core value proposition, and lets me focus on the value I charge for.

But does anyone really use free, closed-source software for core business functions?

That's a big part of my reason. If I'm already working a day job, there's something freeing about not having to worry about whether my side project makes any money or not. Just do what I think is a good idea, release it, done.

Actually I do that for writing also. I spend a bunch of time writing Wikipedia articles, writing answers on various question forums, posting on HN and Slashdot, etc., when in theory I could probably find some way to monetize my writing. But writing a Wikipedia article on something I find interesting is an enjoyable hobby, while figuring out how to start a website with similar content that I could monetize feels like it'd be more of a job.

The dynamics are quiet different I think for small single person OSS.

  1. Create a few good paid apps

  2. ????

  3. Get enough passive income that you'll no longer need to work

Contrariwise, free software has no barrier to entry at all. Just being free is a marketing campaign in itself. You're much more likely to get wide adoption with free software, so if you don't feel capable of marketing and supporting a product, it at least is good advertising for your skills.

I think we need look no further than patio11 to see just how hard it is to make "good paid apps" for a living. We love seeing the Angry Birds runaway successes, but it can be a slog and really slow going. People just starting out can work on free apps as a learning exercise during or just after college and get picked up by a big name company doing great stuff.

Alot of mobile development companies recruit people based on existing experience making apps. Some app makers push their app development services more aggressively than their released apps (alot of them give their apps away to show off their skills to potential clients).

Perhaps the free app maker's ideas aren't polished or just not good enough to stand alone, but the functionality may wow someone looking to take on a technical co-founder or hire a lead developer to produce a bankable product.

This is certainly one way (and a valid way), to do it. But not everyone wants to/can sell. Its a completely different skillset and not everyone is good at it.

Writing good (free) apps, is good for one's portfolio, which helps in freelancing/job market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GnuCash

... oh wait, you said 'thousands of dollars in UI testing.' :)