Open Source is Not a Career Path

Question

Open Source is Not a Career Path

Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 21 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

josh.meares Grasshopper Points: 12 More actions · Answer 1

The key word was "I". If you want to develop something and sell it, then do it.

But if "we" need something as a community, then why not hip in a bit (or more than a bit) and make something. That's open source. Communal programming.

Also, even if a for-profit software model, if you share your code and I share mine, we are both richer, even if we are possible competitors now. That's communal programming as well.

But, the best thing about community is that you don't have to join if you don't want to. 🙂

Gift Peddie SSC Guru Points: 73570 More actions · Answer 2

Jason Selburg (3/29/2010)
l543123 (3/29/2010)
I am sorry but isn't Java free? and isn't it a career path?
Java may be free, and a Java Developer may be a career path, but I don't know of any Java Shops that give out all of their code for free...

I think JBOSS is the free Java IDE but Red Hat owns the middle which I don't think is free so it gets complicated because the Borland and now Embarcadero JBuilder prices compares to VS2005/8/10 just slightly lower in list price.

And since you cannot quickly write complex long running transaction on the web in Java as you would in the Microsoft platform including in the free VWD (Visual web developer), I think it will take much longer to write Java web application compared to C#. The Microsoft platform comes with both synchronous and asynchronous transactions. In software development time translates to money.

Kind regards,
Gift Peddie

Gift Peddie SSC Guru Points: 73570 More actions · Answer 3

Cris E (3/29/2010)
Red Hat exists because of the gap between licensing and implementation costs. But really, most software, regardless of the initial cost, has that same gap and most IT professionals live in that space installing and configuring and using stuff others write. (I'm using MS stuff this year, for example.)
I think the "free" part extends as far as the commodity nature of the software does. That is, browsers are free and mail server software is free and huge honking database and reporting suites may all be free of licensing costs, but the browser is a lot freer than the enterprise reporting software because you can install it and it runs (free!) whereas installing MySql and Jasper is a much more complicated piece of work. Enterprise database and reporting is never free because it's hard, and software is a tiny piece of the real cost.

Red Hat is the largest for profit open source company and it struggles to make one billion dollars in sales which most for profit companies its size attains very easily. And in reporting I don't think Jaspersoft compares to the free version Microsoft offers to small companies because even the VS2005 version of ReportViewer control can be used to develop decent reports with SQL Server and Oracle Express both are free addin MySQL and most companies may not need Jaspersoft because it takes very limited skills to use the Microsoft tools.

Kind regards,
Gift Peddie

lnoland SSCommitted Points: 1753 More actions · Answer 4

I am very grateful that there are so many developers out there willing to share their work for free, but I need to make a living and most ways of doing that in the open-source community do not appeal to me all that much. If I found something which did I certainly would have no problem with it being open-source.

There is, however, I think, a reason to make some types of software open-source even if most things one does, one does with a profit-motive. If one has produced some development software, integration software, etc. which one believes, if widely used, would elevate the quality or reach of software in general, releasing it as free, open-source software might well prove a benefit to the entire community, including oneself. Those of us who produce software also use a lot of software.

This is one of the things which so bothers me about software patents on generic techniques. If, as is often the case, it is something which is not all that innovative, it is a travesty if it is granted a patent regardless of how useful it might or might not be. But if it is something elegant, innovative and truly useful, the patent may be well-deserved but the profit one might gain from claiming proprietary rights and forcing others to continue to use lesser techniques could easily be dwarfed by what we all might gain if it were shared.

- Les

Gift Peddie SSC Guru Points: 73570 More actions · Answer 5

This is one of the things which so bothers me about software patents on generic techniques. If, as is often the case, it is something which is not all that innovative, it is a travesty if it is granted a patent regardless of how useful it might or might not be. But if it is something elegant, innovative and truly useful, the patent may be well-deserved but the profit one might gain from claiming proprietary rights and forcing others to continue to use lesser techniques could easily be dwarfed by what we all might gain if it were shared

I am hoping the US Supreme court will do the right thing and say a business method for hedging financial trades which I think is a modified Black-Scholes is not patentable. If it is patentable US users may one day have to pay for modified Newton. IBM is one of the top US companies that files what I call frivolous software patents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-Scholes

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224200823

Kind regards,
Gift Peddie

GSquared SSC Guru Points: 260824 More actions · Answer 6

Gift Peddie (3/30/2010)
This is one of the things which so bothers me about software patents on generic techniques. If, as is often the case, it is something which is not all that innovative, it is a travesty if it is granted a patent regardless of how useful it might or might not be. But if it is something elegant, innovative and truly useful, the patent may be well-deserved but the profit one might gain from claiming proprietary rights and forcing others to continue to use lesser techniques could easily be dwarfed by what we all might gain if it were shared
I am hoping the US Supreme court will do the right thing and say a business method for hedging financial trades which I think is a modified Black-Scholes is not patentable. If it is patentable US users may one day have to pay for modified Newton. IBM is one of the top US companies that files what I call frivolous software patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-Scholes
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224200823

Gotta agree with you about both points. Too many business models with obvious "prior work" evolutions have been patented, and usually by companies like IBM that seem intent on overworking the patent office with junk papers.

- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread

"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

lnoland SSCommitted Points: 1753 More actions · Answer 7

GSquared (3/31/2010)
Gift Peddie (3/30/2010)
This is one of the things which so bothers me about software patents on generic techniques. If, as is often the case, it is something which is not all that innovative, it is a travesty if it is granted a patent regardless of how useful it might or might not be. But if it is something elegant, innovative and truly useful, the patent may be well-deserved but the profit one might gain from claiming proprietary rights and forcing others to continue to use lesser techniques could easily be dwarfed by what we all might gain if it were shared
I am hoping the US Supreme court will do the right thing and say a business method for hedging financial trades which I think is a modified Black-Scholes is not patentable. If it is patentable US users may one day have to pay for modified Newton. IBM is one of the top US companies that files what I call frivolous software patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-Scholes
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224200823
Gotta agree with you about both points. Too many business models with obvious "prior work" evolutions have been patented, and usually by companies like IBM that seem intent on overworking the patent office with junk papers.

I am inclined to think that in a legal system which routinely grants junk patents, "overworking the patent office with junk papers" is a form of survivor skill. At that point, the most important thing is what the patent holder does with the patent. If they use it to force others to adopt less-desirable approaches so as to gain business advantage, shame on them for exploiting the travesty which is our software Patent system. If they mainly use it as a threat against anyone threatening them -- a sort of mutually-assured-destruction approach, I am happy they found a way to keep the wolves at bay. If, on the other hand, they were to use the Patent to do something magnanimous such as to supply zero-payment or nominal-payment licenses to ensure that the technique remains available to everyone who wishes to use it, then kudos to them -- they sound like a company with whom I would be happy to do business. I don't know if anyone has ever done something like the latter, but one can always dream.