Not directly, but it does reflect a certain naivety that translates into stupid politics.
It also represents an unsustainable economic idea: give something away free so that somebody else can make a buck on it.
The problem is that development and maintenance of open source code involve real costs. The Open Source model assumes that those costs will always be absorbed by good-hearted programmers, for free to everybody else.
Over time, however, the desire for stability within a company's code base, coupled with divergence from Open Source as companies modify Open Source for their own needs, ends up killing the model.
Eventually, somebody simply grabs the Open Source, locks it down as a baseline, and starts selling their own modifications to all comers.
And in doing so violates SOX, and Copyright law..
Example? You're projecting based on your belief of what FLOSS, GPL, and copyleft are. With Sarbanes-Oxley, doing what you describe could actually mean prison for the offender.
Violates the GPL most open source software is published under.
Sorry; that violates a number of laws that'll get you 2-5 as the Bride of Bubba if you get caught and somebody wants to press the issue.
Not at all. (Although that does in fact work in many cases). Many programmers get paid to work on open source projects, by companies selling support or services based on them.
Over time, however, the desire for stability within a company's code base, coupled with divergence from Open Source as companies modify Open Source for their own needs, ends up killing the model.
Not necessarily. Companies will often prefer to contribute their changes back to the main source tree, so they don't have to keep maintaining their patches.
Eventually, somebody simply grabs the Open Source, locks it down as a baseline, and starts selling their own modifications to all comers.
And if the license permits it, that's fine. Apple uses lots of BSD code in OS X, but BSD continues to exist. Choice is good.
Suppose I need an application to do something that no existing applications do. If feasible, and if the task is not too complex, I would write such an application for myself. The costs of my writing the software are borne of necessity--I need the software, so I write it.
If the software is such that other people find it useful, I have three basic options:
Choice #1 may offer cashflow benefits if I invest enough startup money into it, but otherwise likely not. Choice #3 offers no particular benefit. Choice #2 doesn't offer me any direct renumeration, but may offer some other benefits, since other people may examine my code, make enhancements to it, and then give me back those enhancements.
The basic principle behind open-source software is a lot of software is developed for the use of its creators which would also have utility to other people. If someone writes a simple program and then someone else comes along and adds some enhancements, then both people can get the benefit of having an enhanced version of the program without either of them having had to write the whole thing.
" It also represents an unsustainable economic idea: give something away free so that somebody else can make a buck on it. The problem is that development and maintenance of open source code involve real costs. The Open Source model assumes that those costs will always be absorbed by good-hearted programmers, for free to everybody else. Over time, however, the desire for stability within a company's code base, coupled with divergence from Open Source as companies modify Open Source for their own needs, ends up killing the model. Eventually, somebody simply grabs the Open Source, locks it down as a baseline, and starts selling their own modifications to all comers."
The point of the patent system was to allow inventors limited exclusive use of their invention to encourage innovation but then to open it to the public to improve on it. If you stymie opening the info infinitely through perversions of the patent laws intended by the Founders, you are stopping humanity from building upon prior generations' works.
At some point innovation has to be open to be improved upon. I don't understand the visceral reaction some here have to the whole idea of open source, as if it will bring the walls of capitalism tumbling down. Voluntary charity hasn't screwed the planet yet, to my knowledge.