Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:24:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:24:49 -0400 Received: from adsl-161-92.barak.net.il ([62.90.161.92]:8456 "EHLO hirame.qlusters.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:24:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Funding GPL projects or funding the GPL? From: Gilad Ben-Yossef To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Hans Reiser , Alexander Viro , Federico Ferreres , Daniel Mose , Larry McVoy , Rik van Riel , Larry McVoy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openpatentfunds@home.se In-Reply-To: References: <3D44F136.8060202@namesys.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 30 Jul 2002 18:12:24 +0300 Message-Id: <1028041948.13512.187.camel@sake> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5137 Lines: 109 On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 22:47, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > But the assertion made by Al Viro that software maintenance is where > the bulk of the work is, is interesting. Long term this is trivially > true because the all of the code has been written, and there is no new > development to do. Services like distributions and device driver > writers, and kernel maintainers appear to be in the area where > maintenance is important. Maintenance can be handled by > maintenance/support contracts, making the economic model with closed > source and open source the same, except with open source it is easier > for multiple maintainers to cooperate. And in the areas where the > work is primarily maintenance is where open source has been observed > to be well funded so this appears to work in practice. > > Given that software maintenance is the primary problem, it is only > the creators of innovative open source programs whose costs are > external to the economic model, that making business plans harder to > deal with. So the question becomes how in the open source community > do we encourage true innovation, while not encouraging it so much we > fail to weed out the dumb ideas. Innovation always has a large share > of external benefit so the problem of how to encourage and compensate > innovators is not new, but the open source landscape is. OK. How about this? Let us observe that the fundemtal 'problem' here is that closed source software companies get funding by levraging it's control on the inelectual property it generates to get money - 'pay us or live with out it'. The challange is therefore to find a way, a 'business plan' if you will, to get money *without* execersizing control on generated intellectual property. To do this, let's note that there are already equivelent fields of business with some very close charateristics to software (that is they involve brain work, not digging coal) where for various reasons, control of intelectual property is not how you get paid. Let's take a specific example: lawyers cannot control the intelectual property they generate because it's part of the law system that once a lawyer thought up a new idea anyone can use it. In fact, AFAIK precedence is one of the basic ideas of the modern law systems. Are lawyers out of a job? Are there less and less lawyers around because they can't make money? Are they perhaps not innovative? I don't think so. As a matter of fact some would even argue that they maybe too much lawyers around but let's not go there... Ok. So how do they do this? simple, the way they organise their business is suitable for the job: AFAIK, a typical law firm has a couple of senior lawyers who are the 'partners'. The rest of the staff, including the less senior lawyers, are hired help. A couple of interesting to note: 1. The top brass are lawyers, a lot of the time practicing lawyers, not 'managment'. 2. No sales, marketing etc. etc.. Where these are not true is usually in the really big (and therefore we assume succfull) companies. That is it begins to maybe become slightly different only AFTER you succeed. To paraphrase Robert Heinlin, in a typical law firm senior managment 'everyone drops'. And that's it. (I think :-) the problem with current Open Source operations which don't do so well is that they are trying to build a company structured around how closed source software companies are built - senior manamenbt that don't program. CEOs from that other (closed source!) company that worked. Peopole who do PR. Sales people. People who do not 'drop'. Can you say 'Overhead'? In short and plain words, what I think the lawyers know and we need to learn is that to make a business built on something else then intelectual property control, you need low overhead. You need a firm where (almost) everyone drops. Building bloated companies only works if you grab someone in the balls (the customer) and make him maintain the overhead. When you can't grab someone in the balls you've got to be mean and lean. When you're big enough then you can efford some of the bloat and by then maybe you even need it. Maybe. Imagine for a second a software company built according to 'law firm principles' - we have the 'Senior Hackers'. They all write code in addition to taking care of the other sides of business. Sure, they might hire an accountant and other employees to take some of the work etc. but there is no bloated 'managment' that can't hack. Intresting concept if nothing else... I'm sure by know you are all smiling and thinking "OK, I want to have some of what he's been smoking...". Fine, but the lawyers are doing something like this for a long time. It works somehow. Maybe we can learn. Just my 2EUROs, Gilad. -- Gilad Ben-Yossef "You got an EMP device in the server room? That is so cool." -- from a hackers-il thread on paranoia - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/