Comment by ComputerGuru | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ComputerGuru | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't mind the question at all. What angers me is the attitude where people are convinced I'm wrong to withhold the code, regardless of my reasons.

As I explain in the sister post, my software contains years of research. It's not the code that I'm keeping secret, it's my hundreds of hours of testing and researching and experimenting to find out how certain inner-system mechanics work. I want to help people achieve these, but I like being the reference for this.

There are already people that have stolen (early versions of) my source code (and I mean that literally) and are selling it for profit: http://www.vistabootpro.org/

I don't want people to be able to do anything like this. I love the control that I have, and yes, it is a great responsibility. I could abuse this control and charge exorbitant rates for the software and technology, but I don't. While I'm not looking to make money off of my knowledge and prefer to distribute these tools for free, it doesn't mean I don't mind others making money off of MY hard work and research. Whether it's a big company or a small-time get-rich-quick jerk doing the capitalization on my efforts, I really don't want it.

I guess it also does have to do with acknowledgement: I want people to know that someone worked hard and is giving this away for free. The minute I give up the source code, the ideas are let loose and anyone can monetize/abuse them. In a way, giving up this measure of control would dilute the value of it.

tl;dr I don't want anyone getting rewarded (money or attribution) for my hard work and research. Yes, it is a selfish principle, but I think I'm allowed that much given that everything else I'm doing is selfless...

If you charged money, that's something people can relate to. People understand the need to put food on the table. People even understand that jet skis are a lot of fun but they're not cheap. Money makes the world go around. So you could charge away with the full approval of every capitalist in the room.

But it's disappointing to see people hoarding knowledge in order to feel important. Guess what: there are nearly seven billion other people out there. A lot of them are smarter than you, at least in some way, no matter who you are. I'll bet that somewhere in those seven billion people, there is someone who could take your research and produce a product better than yours. (No insult intended -- the numbers are just against you.) If you only released the source. So you're holding the world back in order to feel good about yourself. It's still a relatable concept, but now it's a low, dark thing, and no longer morally defensible.

You know, you guys have really opened my eyes here. I'm beginning to think I was mistaken, and am considering making money off of my software.

It's something people respect, compared to giving away this stuff for free which just can't seem to make anyone happy.

Perhaps the best compromise would be to sell it very cheaply. As a practical matter, a buck or two isn't much of a barrier to people who want to use your software, and if you spread a useful product far and wide, that still benefits humanity.

It seems like being misunderstood is what makes you angry and unhappy here - so switching to a model that people understand might be a relief! Remember why you started the project. Is your goal to prove people wrong about the value of free-but-not-open-source software, or is your goal to improve people's lives at a low cost? After all, there was already a cost to your software - the time cost of finding, evaluating, and installing it. That time cost, plus a buck or two, would not be a big increase in the real cost for end users.

And you could keep it your little secret if your 'business' runs in the red because you charge pennies on the dollar compared to what it's really worth.

Thanks, James. I think you're hitting the nail squarely on the head here.... You've given me much to think about!

Mahmoud, you're beginning to see the problem of bias, but there's a good deal more to it. People like to believe they are secure, and hence, the supposedly "technical" users like to believe they somehow vet their software.

The truth of the matter is vastly different.

Can you name anyone who as actually done a security audit on every single binary and source file they use?

In other words, the assurances people seek by paying for software are fictitious from the start. The very same is true for open source software.

When I was in school, I once needed to get a note from my parents to give to my gym teacher. My gym teacher asked if I had the note, and I said sure, and started to get it out. He told me not to bother, and trusted that it existed and was genuine.

You do have to remember that you are dealing with a very specific subset of the population here on this forum. I have lots of free but not open source software on my system (along side the paid and open source stuff).

I will say that technical users, such as myself and people here, are wary of installing random software on their computers. Most of the time, I'm not worried about malware or nagware but about wasting my time on product that doesn't work. But I've seen low quality paid software, low quality open source software, and low quality free software in equal measure.

I think what your doing will probably be saving people money. As you have pointed out there wil be people taking your source, renaming it and putting it up for sale. I think this type of software there would be a lot of people that would find the alternative first and pay for it.

It's weird I guess that charging for the software would get people off your back but giving it away for free draws this extra criticism rather than thanks.

The amount of entitlement some people feel from the authors of free software is quite surprising.

It's twice as bad when those people are pirates. Honestly, I don't have a big problem with people pirating our software, especially when they probably can't afford it (young teens etc.) but they certainly don't deserve to get our time and support for free as well.

The amount of entitlement some people feel

Stop right there. As a practical matter, you're misinterpreting comments. As a philosophical matter, there's no way you can know what others feel. This whole train of thought is ensuring that people misunderstand you and, worse, take you for the worst kind of sniveling martyr.

I think the real problem you could face going open source, isn't just that someone will rip you off and sell it for money. It's that the person selling it for money can now afford to advertise and spam google, which means your free software is going to rock-bottom out of the search rankings and only a committed person will be able to find your free software.

Also I never got that bizarre entitlement that comes from free software users. I almost feel bad for asking about problems when it comes to free software, just because I know the effort that goes into it.

You can release source without giving up all rights. For example, to prevent all the stuff you said you didn't want happening, there's a Creative Commons license that requires attribution for any uses of the work and disallows commercial use. (Not trying to talk you into anything. I'm just not sure if you're aware of that kind of license, since it didn't sound like it and those licenses get less attention than the more radical GPL.)

Not really. While companies do stick to the rules when it comes to copying source code or using open source libraries, when it comes to ideas and discoveries once the cat's out of the bag, it's out for good.

It doesn't even need to be done intentionally or maliciously. All it takes is one blog post detailing how something works (as discovered by reading through my code), then another person summarizes that discovery, and the next thing you know, it's all over the web and anyone can & will use it.

I really like your point here, all the disucussion about open source license always makes me wonder how applicable that is in the real world. What it comes down to is that a lone software developer doesn't generally have the resources available to enforce his license, making it rather pointless.

He has. There are projects like http://www.gpl-violations.org/ and people like Harald Welte (and many more) who do have the resources and who will help you (for free).

True, but that mainly helps when it's the body of code that provides the key value, like in a large engineering project of the Linux-kernel variety. If it's the idea and algorithms that are valuable, and the code is a fairly straightforward implementation, then someone can just reimplement it and there's no GPL violation (subject to some gray areas). The only thing that could really keep that from happening is: 1) keep your methods secret; or 2) some variety of software patent.

While I don't hold your personal philosophy, after reading several of your posts I can see where you come from. I'm inclined to be an OSS zealot but you know what they say, give an inch and they'll want a mile!

It does make me want to rant about scientists who hold this philosophy though...

I know a professor or two who do the same thing and it bothers me to no end. It stands directly against scientific principles, where you are supposed to share your research with the community. On top of that without the source, an experiment involving software isn't fundamentally repeatable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com