I seem to have been unclear in my previous post about software firms as intermediaries. Don Marti objects:
Software developers have to eat, and the GPL is not just about “join us now and share the software”. Homo economicus writes GPL software, too. Besides acting as a “codification” of science-like norms on information sharing, the GPL is also about making the code itself a commodity in order to drive up the value of the services–support and maintenance programming–that are complements to it. Think of it as a bar: the code is just dry, salty free pretzels without the cold beer of maintenance and support. When a developer decides to release software under the GPL, he or she is typically making an economically rational decision to invest in himself or herself. I know people who spent several years of their lives, when they could afford it, as “starving hackers” contributing to GPL software, and who are now “Senior Architect” types at various big IT companies, paid the big bucks to support and continue development of software they invested a lot of time in, and that they’re uniquely qualified, technically and social-network-wise, to continue supporting. The incentive that the GPL provides for creating software value is a powerful alternative to the “will work for options” model.
I entirely agree. When I said that the GPL community is non-commercial, I didn’t in any sense mean that it’s anti-commercial. Certainly, many people participate in the Linux community because they expect it to pay off for them down the road, and that’s certainly not frowned on within the community.
What I meant was simply that within the community, success and prestige are not measured in monetary terms. In a Wall Street investment firm, respect among the employees is largely going to be based on whose investments have earned the best return. In contrast, respect in a free software project is based far more on the perceived technical elegance of various members’ contributions than on their commercial potential.
But to say that the community itself is not organized around commercial principles is not to say that particular individuals don’t participate for commercial reasons. Many of them clearly do, and no one faults them for it. Don mentioned scientists, and I think that’s a good analogy. Most people would agree that the scientific process (that is, the process of publication, data sharing, and peer review) is not commercial. But that doesn’t mean that plenty of scientists don’t get rich commercializing their discoveries. But such commercialization isn’t an activity of the scientific community, as a community.
Don continues:
People aren’t mad about the Microsoft/Novell deal just because it violates some “community norm”–they’re mad because it’s an attempt to change the rules under which people are expecting to get returns on their personal software investment.
I think Don’s reading too much into my use of the word “norm.” What he’s describing is simply one aspect of the “norm of reciprocity” I was writing about. That people support this norm out of self-interest rather than based on some kind of lofty abstract principle is immaterial. Most community norms are widely supported because members perceive them to be in their self-interest.
So I apologize if I gave the impression that the Linux community is anti-commercial, or that there’s anything wrong with community contributors acting in their self-interest. That’s certainly not what I meant. My point was simply that much of the value that a Linux company can offer to clients is precisely the social-network qualifications Don mentions, and that those aren’t worth much if your social network is boycotting your company.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.