gnupic: Re: [EE] I say it is spinach . . .
Subject:
RE: [EE] I say it is spinach . . .
From:
Chen Xiao Fan ####@####.####
Date:
22 Aug 2005 03:12:18 +0100
Message-Id: <3B8AEFFADD3DD4118F8100508BACEC2C07F774A2@spex>
I forward this to the GNUPIC list. this is really a good writeup.
Open source is not the solution to everything. I like to use
open source software. However it is not reasonable to require everybody
to open source their software (free or not free). And open source
does not equal to GPL. One can always ask, but the decision will be
from the owner of the software.
Regards,
Xiaofan
-----Original Message-----
From: Byron A Jeff ####@####.####
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 12:55 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE] I say it is spinach . . .
But I think that the original point was removed in all of this. That point
was that since tools like MPLAB are free anyway, why not distribute the
source. BTW Olin, I'm with you that if the tool is for sale, then there are
very few good reasons to have an Open Source distribution policy. The only
exceptions that seem reasonable to me is when the software is tied
specifically
to a piece of hardware that's for sale. For example Wouter's XWisp software
is open source. He's also released the firmware so that do it yourselfers
can
build their on WISP628s. But I would have no problem if the firmware was
closed
so that you had to buy a kit or chip. But it's really helpful to have the
protocol and host software open so that interested developers can do mods.
You've done that with EasyProg and I really appreciate it.
I'd like to address why free tools may not benefit from being open sourced.
The reason you don't do that is because of the support issue. Releasing
source, especially when you allow redistributions of modifications can
cause a support nightmare. This happens when some developer soups up the
code in some way, releases the changes, and some less knowledgeable end user
starts to use the modified code base. When something goes wrong, the user
asks for support from the original author instead of going back to the
modifier of the code. Of course the end user won't bother to do the right
thing in an Open Source situation, which is to go into the code themselves
and ID the problem. Even if something is free, and open source, users expect
someone to take the responsibility of support them and their problems. And
that support issue can take an inordinate amount of time when you factor
in someone else's modifications.
I've seen this with my Trivial Programmers. Users modify my design, or use
some obscure PIC programming software with the programmer, then come to my
forum to ask why it didn't work. I've never seen or touched their mods or
software. So I have no clue as to why they are having problems. I do the
best I can. But I'd really be annoyed if Trivial was my way of making a
living, because I certainly could use that time in a more effective manner.
You can try to manage it with policy. Policies can include no redistribution
or
centralized distribution only. Support can be limited to originals only. But
it's still going to take time to sift through requests that some in that
violate those policies.
It's tough to get good Open Source models that work in small scale profit
models. There's no cut and dried right way to do it. It requires having a
user base that's segmented enough where you can gain profit from the
"convenience" segment while gaining mindshare and contributions from the
"DIY" segment. Also there needs to be a big enough pie that a single entity
could not easily handle the entire convenience segment. This is necessary
simply because as Olin has pointed out, someone is going to try to use your
work to get some profit from the convenience segment. And if that segment
is small enough that a single developer can handle it, there's no reason
to share that segment with someone who hasn't contributed much to the
effort.
I've on occasion thought of licensing models where DIY developers gain a cut
of the profits based on the amount of their contributions to the project.
Almost like a co-op. I know it can create a situation where one developer
doesn't have to shoulder the entire development, distribution, and support
roles for a project. OTOH it can create opportunities for individuals to get
some compensation for contributions to the project. I don't think I
researched the issue enough to have a good model in mind. But I think there
may be a niche somewhere in there that effectively blends the commercial and
open source aspects of such projects.
Just some thoughts on the subject.
BAJ
