Money != Object | Hacker News Reader

Money != Object

awesomistguy.com

48 pointsksred19 comments

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.

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.

"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.

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 ;).

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."

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. :)

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.

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. :)

I was aiming for it to be more of a meta, general viewpoint - "do you aim for happiness over cash in everything that you do, including software?" And I'm not saying it's immoral by any means, there is value in paid for services just like there is value in open source. Gun running is another issue :P

Yeah, I've met carpenters who feel that way.

Just thinking about:

Couldn't it be that software is heading a paradigm shift in the economic model?

I would enjoy dealing with indie carpenters but still can't find them :)

If carpenters were building nice new houses and letting me move in with nothing more than a "thank you!", if I could walk into any restaurant or grocery store and just eat what I like, then MAN would I feel like a jerk for expecting to get paid for my software.

"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?"

The problem isn't making money. It's the corrupt and user-hostile lengths proprietary developers go to in order secure that income.

If carpenters were installing coin-operated locks in your house, refusing to let you inspect the building materials, suing you when you make unauthorized repairs, and secretly living in your basement to spy on you so you didn't break their rules, hopefully they'd feel a lot worse about how they made their living.

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.

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

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...

!(Money instanceof Object).

I thought the same. I need to get out more.

!Money.isInstanceOf[AnyRef]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com