Is there more to life than money? Can software developers contribute to these higher values? And is that value lost when the source becomes closed? Eric S. Raymond says yes to all of these questions, and sets out to prove it. But is the difference between Open Source and Closed Source that black and White?
I think ESR is too close to software to see that its simply doing what most crafts do: becoming filled with a wide range of hobbyists. There are those that don’t pay for the job they can do themselves, but plenty of people can’t, or don’t want to do the work of being open source members themselves. And for those people, some things will stay closed.
In his essay, “The Magic Cauldron,” Raymond attempts to explain how the Open Source can produce useful tools and services for no cost, no promise of participation, and an arguably negative economic result. He sets out to prove that Open Source serve different values than the closed source model, and that when you acknowledge those non-monetary values Open Source is truly the way to go. In fact, Raymond wants us to believe that Open Source trumps Closed Source in most situations, due in part to Closed Source is failing to adhere to its own principles.
ESR builds his argument on an interesting framework concerning the value of software. He separates two course classes of value: the sale value is the profit to be made by distributing the software, and the use value is the amount of utility the software serves. He rationalizes Open Source and the Closed Source as serving these values differently. Open Source is obsessed with use value. Developers seek to maximize the amount of utility their product can give them, users who report issues try and make software better suit their needs.
Closed Source, by the nature of its advertisement and sales model, must be all about sale valu, right? Raymond spends a bit too much time digging in to the “contradiction” of this practice, but I don’t think I get it. ESR insists that closed source is this weird mash of hidden software and unmaintainable garbage-for-sale, but I think that he’s undervaluing Closed Source as a smaller inter-corporate open source behind a secure wall.
ESR claims that the “factory model” of closing source makes no sense because for any piece of software that has to be sold, many times more software is written that will never see the outside world. Can that code never be given a use value for developers at the office? Isn’t working on those projects for your peer developers similar to working on open source for the world, just on a smaller scope? While this is obviously less noble than working on something to give to the world for free, doesn’t it make sense to build an ecosystem with use value, that occasionally spits out paying products, which is equivalent to the
ESR also cites an oddity with security by obscurity, but I don’t think that’s the point of closing source, covering up specifications and build systems, or even hiding the amount of user data being processed as feedback. Keeping that information in the dark as a defense mechanism is only good for profits if the customers keep paying. Of course ESR would never stoop so low as to shell out hard cash to be disrespected by a corporate software shill like that.
It isn’t that companies are hiding anything from their users. The users aren’t missing a thing. It’s that the people who pay for the software don’t notice that those features are missing. The price of paid-for software is a tax on laziness. People pay so they don’t have to steal it themselves, or implement it themselves. That’s why programmers don’t buy software. And that’s why there will always be a place for paid software in the world. Not everyone can master computing enough to modify things themselves. There’s never been a craft in the history of mankind that we haven’t hired someone else to do when we’re looking for quality or time-saving.
Decryptic 