Posted on 04/02/2008 5:41:41 AM PDT by twntaipan
Bookmark for later.
Yes, as a guy whose only social life is playing D&D, I admit that I did not have any part in the creation Linux.
----
At the end of the day these companies work on the Linux kernel in order to make money off the product. They understand that improving the kernel for all will benefit themselves as well. GE will probably be along shortly to deny all of this, but the facts are pretty evident.
Jeez, ALL these companies are in league with the Chinese government? Damn socialists!
In fact, the top five developers, Al Viro (1.9 percent of the total percentage of changes to the kernel); David Miller (1.8 percent); Adrian Bunk (1.7 percent); Ralf Baechle (1.6 percent); and Andrew Morton (1.5 percent), alone accounted for 8.5 percent of Linux’s recent code changes.
Or put another way, if a woman can make a baby in 9 months, it’s not true that 9 women can make a baby in 1 month.
Algore?
So how do these companies make money off the product? AFAIK it’s a breach of the usage license of Linux to sell it (although I have no idea who’d sue you for it). I get the idea of competitive collaboration to improve a product, but if the product can’t be sold, why are these companies paying people to work on it?
They pay little of R & D costs, benefit fully from collaboration, and sell both the product and the services (especially the services) behind the product.
But, remember, these are not small start-ups. IBM has existed for 60 years or so, and Intel is the leader in the industry. They must derive some benefit to the bottom line or they wouldn’t be involved.
Almost 100 years actually.
More knowledgeable FReepers, correct me if I'm wrong.
The Linux kernel is covered under the GNU GPL, which means that companies can sell modified copies of the kernel, but they must provide the source code, including modifications. And, after the first distribution, the recipient can then turn around and offer the entire thing for free to others. So, there's not really any money to be made in selling the product itself. As for breaches of the GPL, the original author (or copyright holder) would be the one to sue the infringer.
The money is in supporting businesses and developing custom software applications that may depend on the GNU/Linux system.
Written, no - just advocated by. ;)
(Sorry, I'm an OS/X advocate...)
The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
To be a tad too blunt about it, five or ten years ago I managed a group doing a piece of Unix kernel code critical to the specialized computer systems my employer sells. Now I do that myself as a Linux open source project cooperating with other people in other companies from around the globe (Australia, France, China, Japan, India, Eastern Europe, ...)
For a tenth the cost my employer is getting several times better technology, and our customers much prefer not being locked into proprietary solutions.
That's one way, but not typical.
Here's a fact: Most companies that write software never sell it. The number is huge, something like 90%.
Most software is written in-house for in-house use. It never gets sold.
Since most businesses have the same basic needs, the process of writing software to run internal systems is extremely wasteful. Every company out there that writes a bit of software writes basically the same thing with a few things different for their particular business practices.
Off-the-shelf commercial software doesn't help. It's a one size fits none thing that generally you can't modify to meet your needs.
Enter Open Source software. One company writes it. They give away the source. Hundreds of other companies take it, improve it, and give away the source.
The original company (who was never going to make any money off of the software anyway) gets back a better and more useful product. So do all of the other companies that make changes and release their source.
Everyone ends up with a better, more useful product. No one is out any money. Everyone SAVES money because they don't all have to keep reinventing the wheel.
And that's how you make money off of Open Source. By saving money.
Who says it can't be sold? You're confusing Free (as in Beer) with Free (as in Speech)
If you take open sourced code that is released under the GNU Public License (GPL) and make modifications to it, you are fully free to charge whatever you want for it (as in Beer) The requirement imposed on you though is that the source code including your modification also be made available, under the GPL, for others to use as they wish (as in Speech). If you don't redistribute the software to others, you're under no obligation to release your modifications.
Why this is worth expending resources to companies is that it allows them to avoid re-inventing the wheel, or having to purchase expensive proprietary software when open-source software exists that does what they need with little or no modification.
Companies also can make money off open source software by releasing it packaged with proprietary "value-added" software that makes it worth the consumer's time to buy. ie. Installer programs, Office programs, Point of Sale software, etc.
However inhouse development for inhouse use probably applies for software that is closer to what people actually use -- applications and such.
Most of my colleagues working on the Linux kernel are paid by computer system vendors, such as those listed earlier in this thread.
I suspect you are correct however that the majority of open source work is for inhouse use, where money is saved and better software obtained, by sharing development with other companies needing the same kind of software.
I like the original phrasing: “The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.”
Yes, much more elegantly put.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.