Open source libraries help us developers to write bigger systems faster, but the availability of open source also reduces the possibility to build and sell own libraries.
> but the availability of open source also reduces the possibility to build and sell own libraries
Perhaps, but so do other paid libraries, so in a way, you're competing all the same but you actually have to be good instead of just existing at a lower price point.
But open source libraries have a price point of zero - competing on a lower price would be negative. Other paid libs at least have a price that sustains the developer and/or company behind it.
I am a developer in a low-wage country, I make use of Open Source, I mostly develop large systems, but I also develop libraries for other programmers.
How do I view Open Source? I think it's a net good. It saves a lot of time, leads to systems with better code quality, and allows me to develop faster.
I'm pretty diligent about following the licenses of the things I use, so I sleep well knowing I'm doing exactly what the original author wants me to do.
I'm not sure that my opinions have much to do with being in a low wage country. That would not seem to be part of my view either way.
I think you're on to something here. I have a feeling that the author has already come to the self-serving conclusion that open source software is somehow harmful to developers, and is trying to reverse-engineer a justification for that statement -- ideally one with moral implications like "it takes money away from developers in low-income countries".
No, I just want to hear different opinions from different parts of the world. Just because we live in the western world with high salaries does not mean that this is the norm.
The plan with PayDevs is to give maintainers a choice - it's their decision to monetize or not monetize their open-source libraries. Furthermore, the sourcecode still stays open - only the convenient access to build modules / compiled libraries will cost a dollar a month.
Why would low wage matter? I.e. why would developers in low wage countries view Open Source in a different way than developers in medium/high wage countries?
Maybe from the developer side, it can be seen as something of a luxury - like, how nice that you can afford to spend coding time on projects that make no money. If you live in poverty, your time is better spent on jobs that get you income. I'm guessing they are grateful for FOSS being available, and don't have a negative perception of it, but perhaps there is a lot of talent out there who feels unable to spend time contributing to FOSS.
I think this applies if we take "low wage countries" as literally paying developers below the poverty line, which I think is far off base. Coders are still paid higher relative to the rest of the country, and certainly above the poverty line for most. Wouldn't make much sense as a career path otherwise considering the time to learn the job enough to do it.
Of course I'm generalising, but as someone in the 3rd world I'd only imagine this being different in literal code sweatshops.
My hypothesis is that Open Source Software (Linux, OpenOffice, etc.) is a great gift because there isn't enough money to buy commercial software. However, open source libraries can be seen as a problem because today you can't easily build and sell libraries as everybody expects and uses open-source libraries.
Today, you have to build a bigger useful library, start a company around it, advertise, and sell it as a product - which is a big monetary investment. Starting with a small useful library and slowly receiving some money could help developers to get more interested in developing libraries - especially when young or living in low-wage countries.
Having worked with IT departments and developers from developers from developing countries here is the following observations:
* Microsoft is still very dominant, people use pirated windows on PCs, and in a corporate setting MS tech stacks are very popular. Fewer people can afford MacBooks.
* Linux and free software ideology is not as popular. People want to get buy, not join a revolution.
* In many of these places there is a master-apprentice attitude toward learning. This is pretty much the opposite of the sharing ethos of Open Source. Why would you share your knowledge and software for free when you can charge people?
We have a saying in Bulgarian - "a craft is not learned, it is stolen" which neatly explain the old school approach to learning and training, that is still present in most of world. The master will only train the apprentices the tedious and low-value parts of the craft.
Even though I now live in a somewhat "higher" wage country, when I was young I lived in a low-wage country.
Granted it was also a different time (late 1990s) but Open Source actually allowed me to get interested and have a career in programming.
I could install Linux, have access to good programming tools and literally study the source code. I would buy magazines with CDs packed with OSS ready to use, study and play with. I would probably never be able to afford closed source tools, manuals, etc.
You dont need to be from a “low wage” country to understand that oss has reduced scarcity and thus the cost of actual code has dropped to near zero. Code is everywhere, no one needs (to buy) more of it.
People still pay for customized software. Each company has some internal weird corner cases that are not covered by standard open source software, so you can sell the customization to them or be an employee that does the customization internally.
In a recent project I used standard libraries to connect IMAP, SMTP and web scraping. Nothing interesting. Just connecting tubes and a regular expression in the middle. And a for loop, to repeat it. Nothing interesting, but it's enough to be the computer wizard.
Yes, thats my observation too. While sometime you find libraries that can be bought (e.g. ExtJS), there is no real market for libraries as everybody is used to use open-source, pay nothing, and adapt it to their needs.
I quite liked extjs way before single page apps were bastardised into flying spaghetti monsters. It makes more sense than react but many struggled with basics such as function scopes and jumped the bandwagon. Whereby in extjs you can structure your js app in react you create a mess. But its free, and cheap corps prefer free labour.
You can sell other things. In my experience OSS is not the end but the start of projects around here - you see a project in use (say, a reporting tool for networking products) and you make it better, but this time you sell that.
Want the better tool? I sell the patches and maintenance, and after some prudential time, I release it into the wild.
Not exactly the Red Hat method but it's a method for sure.
But isn't this a little bit perverted system? We build a software app or library that has great value for other people and companies and we do not get paid for this but have to find ways around it to get something back. Imagine that would be the case with normal jobs - we go to work at Google without a salary and then have to find ways to pay the bills with helping other with SEO.
I don't thin open source really changes much from selling software or services. Okay, maybe you can't bill for writing custom framework, but on average I think it is pretty neutral case. Just spend time on other things.
We mantain https://github.com/GeneralBots with no funding at all, and becoming partner of a Big Tech help us to give our Bot platform access to its customers while the product is gaining its liberty. Our marketing is code, there is an instagram but we are a code company. Our CEO become a developer while working and selling. We also enjoy hackathons and events to promote General Bots https://www.instagram.com/GeneralBots . Our model is AGPL and we act like Automatic. You can bring General Bots for you, just like WordPress.
Sorry, the odds of receiving representative sample answers about FOSS from a low-wage country here are exceedingly remote. Ask someone from or in a non-OECD country.
29 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 69.7 ms ] threadPerhaps, but so do other paid libraries, so in a way, you're competing all the same but you actually have to be good instead of just existing at a lower price point.
I am a developer in a low-wage country, I make use of Open Source, I mostly develop large systems, but I also develop libraries for other programmers.
How do I view Open Source? I think it's a net good. It saves a lot of time, leads to systems with better code quality, and allows me to develop faster.
I'm pretty diligent about following the licenses of the things I use, so I sleep well knowing I'm doing exactly what the original author wants me to do.
I'm not sure that my opinions have much to do with being in a low wage country. That would not seem to be part of my view either way.
> PayDevs is Monetization as a Service for #OSS #libraries. We provide a closed registry for #javascript and collect money for #maintainers.
So is your business plan to undermine open source?
Maybe from the developer side, it can be seen as something of a luxury - like, how nice that you can afford to spend coding time on projects that make no money. If you live in poverty, your time is better spent on jobs that get you income. I'm guessing they are grateful for FOSS being available, and don't have a negative perception of it, but perhaps there is a lot of talent out there who feels unable to spend time contributing to FOSS.
Of course I'm generalising, but as someone in the 3rd world I'd only imagine this being different in literal code sweatshops.
Today, you have to build a bigger useful library, start a company around it, advertise, and sell it as a product - which is a big monetary investment. Starting with a small useful library and slowly receiving some money could help developers to get more interested in developing libraries - especially when young or living in low-wage countries.
* Microsoft is still very dominant, people use pirated windows on PCs, and in a corporate setting MS tech stacks are very popular. Fewer people can afford MacBooks.
* Linux and free software ideology is not as popular. People want to get buy, not join a revolution.
* In many of these places there is a master-apprentice attitude toward learning. This is pretty much the opposite of the sharing ethos of Open Source. Why would you share your knowledge and software for free when you can charge people?
Granted it was also a different time (late 1990s) but Open Source actually allowed me to get interested and have a career in programming.
I could install Linux, have access to good programming tools and literally study the source code. I would buy magazines with CDs packed with OSS ready to use, study and play with. I would probably never be able to afford closed source tools, manuals, etc.
In a recent project I used standard libraries to connect IMAP, SMTP and web scraping. Nothing interesting. Just connecting tubes and a regular expression in the middle. And a for loop, to repeat it. Nothing interesting, but it's enough to be the computer wizard.
Want the better tool? I sell the patches and maintenance, and after some prudential time, I release it into the wild.
Not exactly the Red Hat method but it's a method for sure.