Why Discuss Free Software?

by Tim Lee on January 9, 2008 · Comments

Reader Deane had some great questions that I thought would be worth addressing in a new post:

Your major contention seems to be that closed-source software would be less efficient than open source because the latter is more decentralized..

but arnt’ you really talking about a management style here? I think its completely plausible for a closed-source software to have a very decentralized development process.. isnt that how google seems to do stuff? i dont know about microsoft.

Does this have anything to do with the source being open? i dont think so.

Any product development seems to need a degree of centralization, with teams, firms n so on. the degree of centralization depending on the relative cost/benefits of the management decision.

So i don’t see the point really of having a debate on open source vs closed source software. or to the fact that what’s efficient at creativity n so on, as libertarians i thought we’d trust the market to make those kind of decisions, on a product by product basis.

First of all, let me make clear that I don’t see this as a debate about “open source vs. closed source software.” Both styles of software development have their place, and I certainly wouldn’t want to be misunderstood as being opposed to closed-source development. I just think that the advantages of open source software development processes tend to be underestimated, and that in particular Lanier’s criticisms were rather misguided.

Now, it’s certainly true that my argument for the advantages of open source software is largely about more efficient organization of development efforts. That is, I’m interested in figuring out how to best organize programmers to produce useful software efficiently. Much of this process will be “below the radar screen” for consumers, but that doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. It matters to the average consumer for two reasons. First, a better development process means that programmers will produce more, better, and cheaper software for them to use. Secondly, open source software vendors are less likely to try to lock their customers into their particular software platform. That gives consumers the peace of mind that they could switch to a competing software vendor and take their data with them.

Open source software is inherently more decentralized than closed-source software because open source software projects can solicit contributions from those outside of the firm, whereas proprietary software firms can only get contributions from within the firm. As a result, the managers of closed-sourced software projects need to figure out which programmers are best suited to work on a piece of software and hire them, as opposed to simply releasing the software and seeing who expresses interest. The result is that closed-source software projects tend to be much more top-down in their organization than open-source projects.

Now, I agree with you that this is something that the market should sort out. But there are two reasons I think it’s worth discussing open source software on a public policy blog. First, there’s some disagreement over what it means to let the market sort it out. For example, as I wrote in a Cato study two years ago, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is a government intervention in the software industry that places open source software projects at a competitive disadvantage. I’m certainly willing to let open- and closed-source software compete on a level playing field, but as long as government policies are biased against open-source software, I think it’s important to educate people about the advantages of open source software and why we should be concerned about policies that undermine it.

Second, as libertarians we advocate non-coercive ways of solving social problems. The market is one example of that, and a very important one, so libertarian thinkers like Hayek have devoted a lot of time to explaining how the market works and why it tends to work better than state coercion. I believe that peer production (which encompasses free software, Wikipedia, the blogosphere, and other decentralized means of producing useful information without the aid of price signals) is another important example of productive cooperation without state coercion. Understanding how peer production works is useful to liberty for the same reason that understanding the free market is useful: it allows us to explain to people why state intervention isn’t required to solve a variety of social problems.

I think it’s unfortunate that so far, most of the people doing this have hailed from the left. Ironically, they liberally cite libertarian thinkers in doing so. See, for example, Benkler’s citation of Coase and Wu’s citation of Hayek. They do a great job of explaining how and why peer production works, and I think it’s a shame we libertarians didn’t get there first.

Comments Posted in: Open Source, Open Standards & Peer Production

  • There's a reason that every operating system vendor in the world other than Microsoft (i.e. Apple, Sun, Novell) has shifted toward more open-source-centric development models for the core of their OSes.

    This is complete and utter nonsense. Windriver, Monta Vista, and QNX are still selling proprietary OSs and doing quite well. Apple is not an "OS vendor", they're a gadget and services vendor who has found it worthwhile to layer user code over FreeBSD so they can concentrate on their strengths, there's nothing in their organization that would differ if they were to replace FreeBSD with Monta Vista Linux.

    And let's not forget that 95% of the laptop and desktop computers in the world run Windows, which is hardly an indictment of the alleged inefficiency of the proprietary software model.

    FOSS freaks typically take credit for things they're not entitled to claim, and this argument that FOSS is radically different way to organize software projects is just the latest example. FOSS is different way of *paying* for software, not of *producing* it. In essence, FOSS is simply an advertising-supported product, nothing more or less. Software contractors contribute to Linux to get their name in the code, and hardware vendors contribute staff to have an alternative to Microsoft for servers. And Redhat contributes in order to sell services. So it's not free so much as it's subsidized.
  • Deane, I don't think we really disagree. Ronald Coase earned a Nobel prize in economics in part for exploring the "management decision" of whether to organize economic activity using firms or the marketplace. These insights didn't have any direct policy implications, but they've been enormously influential in the way we think about the economy, which has indirectly influenced a lot of policy debates. By the same token, the choice whether to use open or proprietary development methods is in some sense a "management decision," but it's an important management decision that yields important insights about economic theory, and by extension a wide variety of tech policy debates.

    Obviously, some open source projects are more centralized than some proprietary projects, just as some women are taller than some men. But on the margin, adopting open source development models will make your project more decentralized. Likewise, it's possible to run an open source project inefficiently, and there may be certain categories of software that aren't amenable to the open source model. But if you do have the critical mass to run a project on an open source model, the development process is likely to be more efficient than a competing closed-source project. There's a reason that every operating system vendor in the world other than Microsoft (i.e. Apple, Sun, Novell) has shifted toward more open-source-centric development models for the core of their OSes. Microsoft has the luxury of blowing enormous piles of money developing Windows the old-fashioned ways. Its competitors don't have those kinds of resources, so they're going the more efficient route of seeking community help with their development process.
  • argh. meant Deane!.
  • Thank you Tim for this lengthy response.

    While i certainly understand where you are coming from, I'm not completely bought on the idea that,

    a) a FOSS project means its necessarily decentralized.
    b) decentralization necessarily means the software is more efficient.

    To the affect of a)

    I have personally had experiences with FOSS projects that has a very centralized in their development approach. Their project is not popular enough to attract the thousands of contributors like Linux or Firefox, so they rely on good-old hired software developers to get the work done.

    I am willing to bet there are good many closed-source applications which have a very decentralized approach to developing perhaps within those organizations, partners and so on. (doesn't Microsoft have an arrangement which shares their code with developers, researchers, etc.?)

    To the affect of b)

    I think Richard is right to the extent that "more eficient" claim is best supported by evidence and what you mean by "efficiency".

    If its in terms of "better software" for consumers, I can think of a number of instances (such as Media players for example) that open source products can come even close to being first choices for applications. i doubt in the media player market for example, that DMCA is at fault, although i confess i dont have a thorough understanding of it (your cato study is in my to-read list)

    Again i think it comes down to which particular software product you are talking about, and the best approach to develop and distribute it, and i maintain it's just a management decision. So I'd be reluctant to approach it in a more philosophical way.

    Some great insight from the nameless person on jan 10 4.26 am.

    cheers.
    Deabe
  • Metapundit, the main dynamic of FOSS code (from where I sit, as a user and contributor) is that the end-user implicitly agrees to do some testing in return for getting the code for free. The new releases of Linux distros that come out every six months are riddled with bugs that would never fly in commercial software, and we tolerate them and their work-arounds as part of the contract. Fedora 8, for example, doesn't do audio of any kind for any user but root until you fiddle with permissions on hardware devices if you're using the default setup. Patches are forthcoming, but it's a grind. And the Adobe Acrobat plug-in for Firefox can't read the keyboard in the same distro, which makes searching something of a pain. Quality is certainly not up to the Windows level in this stuff.

    Windows source code is available to many customers, but that doesn't make it a free product. So my point is that the operative term in FOSS isn't "open", it's "free," as that's the only difference.

    Both FOSS and proprietary software projects build on code written by others. The Adobe guys count on somebody else to write the OS, the GUI, and the Window manager, they don't so it all themselves, so FOSS and proprietary software projects don't differ in the cast of characters.

    This crazy notion that FOSS is bottoms-up and democratic while commercial software is top-down and fascist is simply that.
  • Richard Bennet said


    FOS simply drives costs downstream by skimping on testing

    Who's assuming facts not in evidence? Especially when writing software for themselves (libraries, OS's, editors, programming languages) my experience is that FOSS has more testing, both automated and user based. Your quote seems to indicate a faith that somehow because money isn't changing hands value, even better value, can't possibly be created by FOSS processes. This despite large quantities of market choices (eg the LAMP stack) that demonstrate otherwise. It is precisely at this point (rescuing FOSS from the communists, convincing libertarians that non-economic arrangements may be beneficial and liberty enhancing) that I appreciate Tim's contributions.


    because there are lots of proprietary open source projects in the world, e.g. Windows


    What? In what universe is Windows "open source"? I am aware of their "Shared Source" initiative in which certain partners (OEM's, Govt agencies, etc) may sign NDA's and view the windows source as an aid to interoperability, etc. This is a huge distance from any meaningful sense of "open source".


    You go on to say


    This is a fallacy, as capitalistic s/w projects often use contractors, third party code, and joint development. The range of opportunities is actually broader in non-FOS projects, therefore.

    Please. Yes proprietary projects use contractors, third parties, etc. Of course my experience in software dev strongly suggests that the less core you are to the company, the less core your dev work is going to be. The Indian outsourcing firm is probably testing, the remote contractors are writing isolated bits and pieces like plugins and drivers while the core product is internal to the company. Even ignoring that generalisation, however, how in the world can you say that "company X may be in a relationship with a few people not formally employed by them" means greater opportunities for participation than FOSS (anybody anywhere with skills and inclination may participate).



  • EF, if you read "Why I'm not a conservative," you'll see that the only reason Hayek didn't call himself a libertarian is because he thought the word sounded funny. Like Milton Friedman, he called himself a classical liberal. He wouldn't have denied that his views are, substantively, what is now called libertarianism.
  • One of the reasons I like TLF is that you're not one of those libertarians who seem to focuses solely on the economic side of libertarian thought, and that you can see elements of your beliefs in sections of society, even when that takes you closer to the 'lefties'. But I think you're quite lonely in that place.

    I agree entirely, as Tim is actually concerned about freedom whereas the IPCentral gang are just corporate power apologists, who don't really care about freedom, or human rights for that matter either.

    What Tim doesn't get though is that a substantial part of the 'left' REALLY gets markets, and that's why many ecologists embrace authentic market forces.

    See Amory Lovins at naturalcapitalism.org, for example.

    http://www.natcap.org/
  • Tim:

    Caught you again, claiming that von Hayek was a Libertarian!

    Not true! See his essay "Why I am not a Conservative"

    Can you cite even one example when von Hayek indicated he was a Libertarian?

    EF
  • Now, it’s certainly true that my argument for the advantages of open source software is largely about more efficient organization of development efforts.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Are "open source" projects (I assume you mean "free open source" because there are lots of proprietary open source projects in the world, e.g. Windows) more efficient, or simply cheaper? It seems to me you're advocating for an "infinite number of monkeys" approach to s/w dev, which may be cheap but isn't efficient; FOS simply drives costs downstream by skimping on testing.

    Open source software is inherently more decentralized than closed-source software because open source software projects can solicit contributions from those outside of the firm, whereas proprietary software firms can only get contributions from within the firm.

    This is a fallacy, as capitalistic s/w projects often use contractors, third party code, and joint development. The range of opportunities is actually broader in non-FOS projects, therefore.

    The result is that closed-source software projects tend to be much more top-down in their organization than open-source projects.

    Again, facts not in evidence. All s/w projects are managed top-down from the standpoint of who does what part of the overall design. That's just the way large engineering projects tend to be, and there's nothing magic about the intent to give the product away for free other than skimping on quality. Want to ride in Space Shuttle produced by an FOS team? Ha.

    They do a great job of explaining how and why peer production works, and I think it’s a shame we libertarians didn’t get there first.

    Do they explain how it works, or simply how they think it works? I maintain they're romanticizing, and there's no shame in not doing that.
  • Your last paragraph is interesting because I think the reason why libertarians weren't there first is that many of them are, because of economic reasons, on the right, and a lot of the good stuff going on with the internet has an element of struggle against the commercialization of life online that is more of a progressive thing. That's why Benkler and Wu were there 'first', I think.

    One of the reasons I like TLF is that you're not one of those libertarians who seem to focuses solely on the economic side of libertarian thought, and that you can see elements of your beliefs in sections of society, even when that takes you closer to the 'lefties'. But I think you're quite lonely in that place.

    my 2c.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: