Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/23/01 10:44:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: loic@gnu.org Sender: loic@senga.org (Loic Dachary) Reply-to: loic@gnu.org To: jneves@ieee.org CC: discussion@fsfeurope.org, fsfe-france@gnu.org, TonStanco@aol.com I'm not FreeDevelopers educated enough to answer you. Tony could you explain why it could work ? Cheers, > > Miguel Neves writes: > > > > http://209.249.55.157/company/CommCo/ > > > [Warning: I'm a Computer engineer who has taken a few business classes > and helps somes companies top level management understand their > systems.] > > It's interesting as an idea, but solely as that. This won't work. The > reason why free software has worked so well so far is the connection > between users and developers: the user is the develloper. Even > Microsoft, who is usually accused of not listening to its customers has > the biggest usability labs in the world (yes, one of the reasons word > has so many features is that they put "everything" in it the usability > labs tell them to). > > Now, if you believe Microsoft is not a sucessful company, from not only > a financial view, but also from a political/advocacy point of view, then > ignore this. > > The structure they propose is not different from proprietary software > companies, it's just like them, but like the ones who were beaten up by > MS. I believe this proposal was done with the best of intentions, but it > has no way to survive, at least not in the big picture. > > BTW I believe it's impossible to have a single entity doing the role > proposed for freedevelopers.net. Can someone explain me why, on a > networked world, someone proposes a single entity point of access ? ++++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/24/01 9:48:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: loic@gnu.org Sender: loic@senga.org (Loic Dachary) Reply-to: loic@gnu.org To: TonStanco@aol.com CC: fsfe-france@gnu.org, discussion@fsfeurope.org > Since this is a real Kuhn paradigm shift, it requires a lot of effort to > break free of old ways of understanding the world. The structure will never > make sense looking at it with old eyes and there are a lot of issues that > intersect with it. Going back to first principles and going slow is the only > way to make sense of it. I fully agree with you. When first looking at FreeDevelopers.net people think it's a joke. They read around during ten minutes and leave. I can't analyze exactly why. I had the same reaction to be honest. Only I read the web site during two hours and finaly figured out it's a nice dream to have and it's worth trying to make it reality. I very much see it as Free Software vs proprietary software. When people first heard about Free Software they laughed and left. 15 years ago they would not even give it a second look. Now we stand on more solid grounds but it tooks ages and most people are still very confused by the philosophy of Free Software. It needs a lot of patience and talking to spread a new idea. Regarding FreeDevelopers I'm in a similar position as I was 13 years ago when I discovered Free Software. I find it very appealing and I support the idea. However I do not understand enough of it to advocate it myself. It took me years to actually understand Free Software and become able to talk about it in a sensible way. I expect it will take me some time for FreeDevelopers as well. That's why I asked you to dialog with us on discussions@fsfeurope.org and fsfe-france@gnu.org. It will help improve my level of understanding of FreeDevelopers and at the same time it will give a chance to people who are still skeptical to change their mind. Cheers, +++++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/25/01 1:10:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: TonStanco To: loic@gnu.org, jneves@ieee.org CC: discussion@fsfeurope.org, fsfe-france@gnu.org CC: TonStanco > I'm not FreeDevelopers educated enough to answer you. Tony > could you explain why it could work ? My apologies for taking so long to respond, but I have been traveling. I will try to answer your questions as best as I can on the CommCo. However, before I can explain the solution, I need to explain the background, because form needs to follow function. I suggest that you read three background pieces. 1. A DCLUG speech that ties most things together [http://lwn.net/daily/guardians.php3] 2. Why Microsoft is a Dinosaur [http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/04/23/2336214&mode=thread], which explains why old paradigms no longer apply with software, because this is a new age unlike the Industrial Age, and 3. Why FreeDevelopers used the Declaration of Independence as a model for the Declaration of Software Freedom: Is Software Law or Literature. [http://FreeDevelopers.net/press/whydecl/], which deals with why free software ought to be the paradigm on moral principles. The short description of these pieces is that free software is morally and philosophically superior to proprietary, so it ought to be the paradigm. Free software is economically more efficient than proprietary and so it will be the paradigm eventually. But free software has one major obstacle in establishing itself as the paradigm -- paying developers. Since free software doesn't pay its developers, this fact causes the personal interests of developers to conflict with their social interest. As such, most of the world's 4 million developers produce closed code, even though it is inefficient to do so and also morally wrong as RMS as stated for 17 years. This is like the case a few hundred years ago, when surgeons kept their innovations secret to benefit themselves personally, but harming everyone else at the same time. Over time, this was seen as immoral and inefficient, and therefore the paradigm changed, so that surgical innovations were shared. I believe that the same will happen with software. But like those surgeons who resisted at that time, because they personally benefited, we will have those who personally benefit now to oppose the change that is good for everyone. > > [Warning: I'm a Computer engineer who has taken a few business classes > > and helps somes companies top level management understand their > > systems.] FYI. I am a securities attorney, with a general law degree and a master of laws (LL.M.) in securities/corporate law. I worked for over 5 years at the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Internet and software group. I worked on over 300 IPOs in that time and had to analyze the industry in depth as part of my job. > > It's interesting as an idea, but solely as that. This won't work. The > > reason why free software has worked so well so far is the connection > > between users and developers: the user is the develloper. This is one reason that free software works, but a minor one. The main reason free software works is because it is a much more efficient developmental paradigm. Perhaps as much as 10x more efficient. This is explained more in the DCLUG speech, but mostly in the article, Why Microsoft is a Dinosaur. The proof of the huge efficiency gains from free software is GNU/Linux. Without money and without corporate organization GNU/Linux should not have been able to compete successfully with Microsoft, which is probably the world's greatest corporation with a monopoly on the desktop, 85% gross margins and $25 billion in the bank. Unless free software development was vastly more efficient, GNU/Linux would not be possible. > > Even > > Microsoft, who is usually accused of not listening to its customers has > > the biggest usability labs in the world (yes, one of the reasons word > > has so many features is that they put "everything" in it the usability > > labs tell them to). > > > > Now, if you believe Microsoft is not a sucessful company, from not only > > a financial view, but also from a political/advocacy point of view, then > > ignore this. > > > > The structure they propose is not different from proprietary software > > companies, it's just like them, I don't understand this statement. FreeDevelopers is a worldwide, inclusive membership organization that will be fully democratic. How is this like Microsoft or any other proprietary company? This structure is more like NASD/NASDAQ, VISA/banks, Medical Associations/doctors, or bar associations/lawyers. It is constructed as a self regulatory organization. It is more like these SRO entities, but will go far further than they do, because FreeDevelopers will have its own marketing entity. > > but like the ones who were beaten up by > > MS. I believe this proposal was done with the best of intentions, but it > > has no way to survive, at least not in the big picture. What are your reasons for this statement? This is a conclusory opinion. And I have an opposite one. The only way to think about which is right is to have reasons as a basis for either opinion. > > BTW I believe it's impossible to have a single entity doing the role > > proposed for freedevelopers.net. Can someone explain me why, on a > > networked world, someone proposes a single entity point of access ? The CommCo is not a single point of access. It is a single marketing company distribution point, because otherwise GPL software can't be funded and the industry stays inefficiently proprietary just to pay the developers. Because of the freedoms given by GPL, there is a problem that competing GPL marketing entities will compete themselves to death, since they could always take the code (that they don't pay to develop) and sell for near zero cost that doesn't recoup the development cost. To recoup the development costs, the marketing entities have to be coordinated to not charge less than the salaries to the developers. With traditional organization and competition, competing free software marketing companies will collapse (as we are seeing with the open source companies). So we need a single marketing company to pay the developers. But a single distribution point is not a problem for developers, because they will own the marketing company as a community. Also, the development is still free and open like it is now and will be uncontrolled by the marketing entity. +++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/25/01 1:12:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: TonStanco To: loic@gnu.org, TonStanco CC: fsfe-france@gnu.org, discussion@fsfeurope.org >> Since this is a real Kuhn paradigm shift, it requires a lot of effort to >> break free of old ways of understanding the world. The structure will >> never make sense looking at it with old eyes and there are a lot of issues >> that intersect with it. Going back to first principles and going slow is the >> only way to make sense of it. > > I fully agree with you. When first looking at > FreeDevelopers.net people think it's a joke. They read around during > ten minutes and leave. Yes. That is a very common behaviour. But FreeDevelopers is very serious and I think it will surprise a lot of people when it works. As I explain it to people, they slowly start to see the logic. But it takes effort on my part and on their part to achieve that. > I can't analyze exactly why. I had the same > reaction to be honest. Only I read the web site during two hours and > finaly figured out it's a nice dream to have and it's worth trying to > make it reality. It is because it is a dream that people think it is too much to wish for. But it is based on very rational principles, even if it looks to good to be true from where we stand at the end of the 20th century. It is not unlike people who wished for democracy in the 18th century. It too seemed too good to be true. Now, we don't understand what took them so long to understand it. > I very much see it as Free Software vs proprietary software. When > people first heard about Free Software they laughed and left. 15 years ago > they would not even give it a second look. Now we stand on more solid > grounds but it tooks ages and most people are still very confused by > the philosophy of Free Software. Yes. It is very much like Free Software. In fact, much of the skepticism about FreeDevelopers for most people comes from their residual skepticism about Free Software. FreeDevelopers is just about giving a commercial form to Free Software, so you have to believe that Free Software is the right way to go first. After people believe that Free Software is the right thing, people then need to understand that the world is organized incorrectly for the Intellectual Age and needs a new commercial form to let Free Software flourish. It fundamentally comes down to understanding that the world is wrong about software development at this time, not that Free Software is wrong, so that basic things have to change. > It needs a lot of patience and talking to spread a new idea. > Regarding FreeDevelopers I'm in a similar position as I was 13 years > ago when I discovered Free Software. I find it very appealing and I > support the idea. However I do not understand enough of it to advocate > it myself. It took me years to actually understand Free Software and > become able to talk about it in a sensible way. I expect it will > take me some time for FreeDevelopers as well. > > That's why I asked you to dialog with us on > discussions@fsfeurope.org and fsfe-france@gnu.org. It will help > improve my level of understanding of FreeDevelopers and at the same > time it will give a chance to people who are still skeptical to change > their mind. It is a pleasure to dialog on this. This is fun for me ;-) If I don't make things clear, please ask me to restate it and make it clearer. +++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/25/01 4:15:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: jneves@ieee.org (Joao Miguel Neves) To: TonStanco@aol.com CC: loic@gnu.org, discussion@fsfeurope.org, fsfe-france@gnu.org, TonStanco@aol.com On 25 May 2001 13:10:49 -0400, TonStanco@aol.com wrote: > I suggest that you read three background pieces. > Done that. If I understood what you wrote and the pieces your main points are that: - Free software development is more efficient than proprietary software. - Software should be free because it can enforce controls on people. - To become the only kind of software development, free software development needs to find a way to get money to developers. > > > It's interesting as an idea, but solely as that. This won't work. The > > > reason why free software has worked so well so far is the connection > > > between users and developers: the user is the develloper. > > This is one reason that free software works, but a minor one. The main reason > free software works is because it is a much more efficient developmental > paradigm. Perhaps as much as 10x more efficient. This is explained more in > the DCLUG speech, but mostly in the article, Why Microsoft is a Dinosaur. > I disagree. I believe that then power of free software appears when a user has a problem and solves it and can share it with others. His solution evolves with the feedback from others and becomes several solutions to several people problems. I believe that this is more than a minor reason, it's the reason why free software works. > The proof of the huge efficiency gains from free software is GNU/Linux. I prefer effectiveness to efficiency. Means getting results while effectiveness may mean to optimize a single step of the solution. > > > The structure they propose is not different from proprietary software > > > companies, it's just like them, > > I don't understand this statement. FreeDevelopers is a worldwide, inclusive > membership organization that will be fully democratic. How is this like > Microsoft or any other proprietary company? This structure is more like > NASD/NASDAQ, VISA/banks, Medical Associations/doctors, or bar > associations/lawyers. It is constructed as a self regulatory organization. It > is more like these SRO entities, but will go far further than they do, > because FreeDevelopers will have its own marketing entity. > My this is just a question of belief, but I don't believe that a single entity (FSMC) can represent either the diversity or the power of free software. I understand marketing has giving to people what they want or need. I don't believe that anyone who is not in close contact with the developers can effectively market a software product, especially if you take into account cultural differences. Having a single entity doing this for all free software is just a task too big to be done. What I do believe is in a network of "Independent consultants", as the document calls them, that can be either persons or companies. The nodes of this network will have 2 things working for them: the knowledge of a certain market and an understanding of free software that allows them to contact directly the free software community. Companies like freedevelopers.net-marketing would eventually appear as the network develops itself, not before, and probably not as a single company. > > > but like the ones who were beaten up by > > > MS. I believe this proposal was done with the best of intentions, but it > > > has no way to survive, at least not in the big picture. > > What are your reasons for this statement? This is a conclusory opinion. And I > have an opposite one. The only way to think about which is right is to have > reasons as a basis for either opinion. > I hope I have exposed them above. If not, let me try to clarify: - No single entity is able to represent all free software solutions. - No single entity is able to effectivly represent any software solution to all or even most of the world's cultures. - Marketers have a natural power over developers (even if most developers don't want to recognize this): they know the customer and understand what he/she wants. > > > BTW I believe it's impossible to have a single entity doing the role > > > proposed for freedevelopers.net. Can someone explain me why, on a > > > networked world, someone proposes a single entity point of access ? > > The CommCo is not a single point of access. It is a single marketing company > distribution point, because otherwise GPL software can't be funded and the > industry stays inefficiently proprietary just to pay the developers. > If I understand it right freedevelopers.net model of paying developers depends on the effectiveness of FSMC. For the reasons stated above I don't think this will work. > So we need a single marketing company to pay the developers. But a single > distribution point is not a problem for developers, because they will own the > marketing company as a community. Also, the development is still free and > open like it is now and will be uncontrolled by the marketing entity. > Sorry, this makes me remember how Jeff Bezos on unions ("our employees don't need a union because they all own the company"). A single distribution point IS a problem for a lot of developers, that have learned to contact directly with their users and have seen the feedback loop work for them. Unless I'm completly missing the point, freedevelopers.net model depends on controlling GPL projects distribution, creating an artificial scarcity. In my opinion this will not work, as proprietary software model won't work. Something more like the "Street Performer Protocol", user donations or some kind of "work recognition" awards. Supporting a worldwide freeflow of money (like a worldwide cheap, localized paypal-like service) that allowed these recognition systems to work would be, in my view, a more effective help to free software developers than any other structure. Joao Miguel Neves +++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/25/01 8:44:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: TonStanco To: jneves@ieee.org CC: loic@gnu.org, discussion@fsfeurope.org CC: fsfe-france@gnu.org, TonStanco > Done that. If I understood what you wrote and the pieces your main > points are that: > > - Free software development is more efficient than proprietary > software. > - Software should be free because it can enforce controls on people. > - To become the only kind of software development, free software > development needs to find a way to get money to developers. Yes those are the main propositions. > > > > It's interesting as an idea, but solely as that. This won't work. > The > > > > reason why free software has worked so well so far is the connection > > > > between users and developers: the user is the develloper. > > This is one reason that free software works, but a minor one. The main > > reason > > free software works is because it is a much more efficient developmental > > paradigm. Perhaps as much as 10x more efficient. This is explained more in > > the DCLUG speech, but mostly in the article, Why Microsoft is a Dinosaur. > I disagree. I believe that then power of free software appears when a > user has a problem and solves it and can share it with others. His > solution evolves with the feedback from others and becomes several > solutions to several people problems. I believe that this is more than a > minor reason, it's the reason why free software works. Stating it like that and emphasizing the feedback loop eliminates the disagreement between us. Because the interaction of minds in intellectual products is the reason for the greater efficiency of free software. So it is same idea expressed in different ways. So we agree here. > > The proof of the huge efficiency gains from free software is GNU/Linux. > I prefer effectiveness to efficiency. Means getting results while > effectiveness may mean to optimize a single step of the solution. > > > > The structure they propose is not different from proprietary > software > > > > companies, it's just like them, > > > > I don't understand this statement. FreeDevelopers is a worldwide, > > inclusive > > membership organization that will be fully democratic. How is this like > > Microsoft or any other proprietary company? This structure is more like > > NASD/NASDAQ, VISA/banks, Medical Associations/doctors, or bar > > associations/lawyers. It is constructed as a self regulatory organization. > > It > > is more like these SRO entities, but will go far further than they do, > > because FreeDevelopers will have its own marketing entity. > My this is just a question of belief, but I don't believe that a single > entity (FSMC) can represent either the diversity or the power of free > software. What if the FSMC employs a diversity of local marketing or free software people to sell/maintain/service at the local level? It isn't clear yet if that should be employees or local independent consultants/marketers, but there needs to be a coordinating body between the multitude of developers and a multitude of local marketers. Without the coordinating body, the marketers will always end up controlling the multitude of developers (as in proprietary) or not paying the developers (as is currently with open source). The main economic problem is a collective action problem where developers have to act as a collective entity, otherwise they will be individually weak. > I understand marketing has giving to people what they want or > need. I don't believe that anyone who is not in close contact with the > developers can effectively market a software product, especially if you > take into account cultural differences. Having a single entity doing > this for all free software is just a task too big to be done. This is a good point. But the confusion is that the diagram is not totally complete. There will have to be national branches of the FSMC and even more local branches too. But they would need to not compete with each other only on price, but rather need to act as a transmission system to signal to the FSMC what software is being demanded by the market, so that that marketing information can be relayed to FD, so that interested developers can produce it, if they want to serve that market segment. > What I do believe is in a network of "Independent consultants", as the > document calls them, that can be either persons or companies. The nodes > of this network will have 2 things working for them: the knowledge of a > certain market and an understanding of free software that allows them to > contact directly the free software community. Yes. This is very important to get the local marketing information to the developers. However, it is still not completely clear whether this local marketing function should be independent or as employees, though independents will probably be more efficient. > Companies like freedevelopers.net-marketing would eventually appear as > the network develops itself, not before, and probably not as a single > company. I am not sure I understand this. If a single point distribution company is not needed, it should not be used. So, if developers could be paid without it to develop free software, why do it after? The main proposition for the FSMC is that without it, the collective action problem will end out causing competition to death and no developers will get paid. If developers can be paid without the FSMC, it is certainly better not to have a single point distribution system before or after. But how does your system pay the developers without one? > > > > but like the ones who were beaten up by > > > > MS. I believe this proposal was done with the best of intentions, > but it > > > > has no way to survive, at least not in the big picture. > > > > What are your reasons for this statement? This is a conclusory opinion. > > And I > > have an opposite one. The only way to think about which is right is to > > have > > reasons as a basis for either opinion. > > > I hope I have exposed them above. If not, let me try to clarify: > - No single entity is able to represent all free software solutions. > - No single entity is able to effectivly represent any software > solution to all or even most of the world's cultures. Agreed. That is why there must be local branches of FSMC. But the single point entity is not to solve this problem that you state. Stating it this way, you are right that if you can do it only with local entities, it is a better solution. But I contend that if you only have local entities without a coordinating single entity, the local entities will compete to death because the GPL allows them to just take the code without paying the developers. And then the industry has a major problem. So the problem the single entity solves is the payment to the developers by making sure that the local entities include the real cost of the development of the code as part of their cost structure when they market the goods. > - Marketers have a natural power over developers (even if most > developers don't want to recognize this): they know the customer and > understand what he/she wants. Yes. This is explained in the CommCo. That is why the CommCo has the marketing company owned and controlled by the FreeDeveloper entity. These 2 entities can balance out the power of the marketers with the power of the developers. In the proprietary companies, the developers are not unitied, so they have no countervailing power to offset the marketing arm of the proprietary company, so you end up with Microsoft, where the marketers have all the power and most of the wealth, and the developers are just replaceable human inputs. > > > > BTW I believe it's impossible to have a single entity doing the role > > > > proposed for freedevelopers.net. Can someone explain me why, on a > > > > networked world, someone proposes a single entity point of access ? > > > > The CommCo is not a single point of access. It is a single marketing > > company > > distribution point, because otherwise GPL software can't be funded and the > > industry stays inefficiently proprietary just to pay the developers. > > > If I understand it right freedevelopers.net model of paying developers > depends on the effectiveness of FSMC. Yes. The FreeDevelopers part is the development/production arm. The FSMC part is the marketing arm to sell the software that the FreeDevelopers produces. > For the reasons stated above I > don't think this will work. Do you still think it won't work after the further explanation? If so, tell me where you disagree still. > > So we need a single marketing company to pay the developers. But a single > > distribution point is not a problem for developers, because they will own > > the > > marketing company as a community. Also, the development is still free and > > open like it is now and will be uncontrolled by the marketing entity. > > > Sorry, this makes me remember how Jeff Bezos on unions ("our employees > don't need a union because they all own the company"). A single > distribution point IS a problem for a lot of developers, that have > learned to contact directly with their users and have seen the feedback > loop work for them. I don't understand. If the developers can get paid for their work directly from their customers, it should be done that way. The CommCo is constructed to solve the problem where developers join together from around the world to produce major free software projects. But once those projects are done, *others* just take the code and sell it to their customers without paying the original coders, who did the work. This is the problem the CommCo is established to correct. > Unless I'm completly missing the point, freedevelopers.net model depends > on controlling GPL projects distribution, creating an artificial > scarcity. In my opinion this will not work, as proprietary software > model won't work. No, the CommCo is not to create artificial scarcity. It is to ensure that the cost of the development of the code is included in the price to the customer, so that it can be relayed to the developers who created the code. Unless the developers are paid to develop the code under a free software model, most will do it under a proprietary paradigm, even though that is less efficient as a development model. Also, it is fair that people who do the work get paid for it. If they personally don't want the money, they can give it to charities. However, most developers have to pay for food, shelter, clothes for their kids, so they need money. Right now, they get their money at another job and then code for the movement in their spare time. This is another inefficiency, since if they are paid to code fulltime in free software, the world is better off with more and better applications. > Something more like the "Street Performer Protocol", > user donations or some kind of "work recognition" awards. This is not a bad idea, because the issue is fairly paying the developers for the work they do. So we are now just talking about *how* best to do that. Again, if there is a viable way to do that on a individual developer or entity basis without the CommCo, it should be done that way. But if there was an easier way to do it, it would have been done a long time ago. > Supporting a worldwide freeflow of money (like a worldwide cheap, > localized paypal-like service) that allowed these recognition systems to > work would be, in my view, a more effective help to free software > developers than any other structure. The problem with this structure is not the lack of a micropayment system. The problem is that with the GPL, competing marketing companies can take the code and not include the cost of development in their cost structure. So, they will exclude the cost of development to get a marketing advantage. What is needed is a superstructure that makes all the individual, local marketers include the costs of development in their selling price. This is why you need a single point distribution system. So all the local marketers have to pay for the development cost for GPL code. +++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/26/01 8:13:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: jneves@ieee.org (Joao Miguel Neves) To: TonStanco@aol.com CC: loic@gnu.org, discussion@fsfeurope.org, fsfe-france@gnu.org Thanks for the interaction. I'm learning a lot. Let me try to resume this, so I can avoid my tendency to digress. Sorry for the repetition of somethings, but I think it's needed. Your premisses, as I see them: (1) Free software development is more efficient than proprietary software. (2) Software should be free because it can enforce controls on people. (3) To become the only kind of software development, free software development needs to find a way to get money to developers. (4) The market isn't working right now because the companies are gaining money from free software are not using that money to reward developers. (5) The way to correct the market is to create an organization that sells free software and rewards developers. This company would have a worldwide scope. The premisses I think are not correct are (3) and (4). In (3) I'm not sure if I want a single type of software development, I believe diversity is beautiful (I believe this is another discussion). My real problem is with (4). What I've seen of the market is that more and more companies hire free software developers either letting them work on or with the purpose of working on free software projects. As I see it, then there's the market. FSMC (Free Software Marketing Company) will have to be extremely effective at marketing if it wants to be a world-wide software supplier that, according to you, will compete with a lot of companies that don't have that cost. Simply put, what will be this company market advantage ? After all all the system depends on the success of FSMC. To me it seems that, as described, FSMC depends on getting a distribution monopoly on some free software projects. This limitation on distribution reduces the effectiveness of development by separating users from developers, putting marketers in the middle of that interaction. This introduction causes delays in the feedback loop that we agree to be an important feature of free software development. This means effectively reducing free software development efficiency. The reason why I don't think the market is as gloomy as it seems is that the number of companies that have been working with free software is increasing, and most of them are not playing by corporate rules, but by the community rules. Those who don't have less support by the community and end up paying more for their product development, so they have to ask more money from their customers. An example of this, as far as I can tell, has been Caldera. They had one of the first "graphical" linux distributions, but they've fall beyond most of others in market share. My point is that this happened because most of its value-added software was not free and not even distributable. Joao Miguel Neves ++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/26/01 10:58:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: loic@gnu.org Sender: loic@senga.org (Loic Dachary) Reply-to: loic@gnu.org To: jneves@ieee.org (Joao Miguel Neves) CC: TonStanco@aol.com, discussion@fsfeurope.org, fsfe-france@gnu.org > - Software should be free because it can enforce controls on people. Is this what you meant or is there a typo ? > solutions to several people problems. I believe that this is more than a > minor reason, it's the reason why free software works. The four fundamental freedoms are the roots of all the side effects you mention ("the user is the developer", "more efficient development model"). Listing all the consequences of those four freedoms would be a hard job. Sorting them by order of importance is probably impossible. Depending on your perspective you may see one or the other as "the" most important. Since they do not exclude each other it does not really matter to find out. > My this is just a question of belief, but I don't believe that a single > entity (FSMC) can represent either the diversity or the power of free > software. I understand marketing has giving to people what they want or I think the idea is that this company is much more like a nation (hence the declaration) than a company. In that sense it will represent the diversity of Free Software in the same way as France represents the diversity of the French culture. Cheers, +++++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/26/01 11:31:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: TonStanco To: jneves@ieee.org, TonStanco CC: loic@gnu.org, discussion@fsfeurope.org CC: fsfe-france@gnu.org > Thanks for the interaction. I'm learning a lot. As in all intellectual pursuits, the interaction helps both of us ;-) > Let me try to resume this, so I can avoid my tendency to digress. Sorry > for the repetition of somethings, but I think it's needed. Yes. The repetition keeps us focused. > Your premisses, as I see them: > (1) Free software development is more efficient than proprietary > software. Yes. > (2) Software should be free because it can enforce controls on people. Yes, but as with RMS, I would put (2) first, since the moral reasons are the most important. > (3) To become the only kind of software development, free software > development needs to find a way to get money to developers. In line with putting (2) first, (3) is mostly true, but not completely, because if you have enough moral people who will fight for freedom, then you don't have to pay them to win. However, in the real world most people are utilitarians, not philosophers, so paying them gets us the needed critical mass. Obviously, it also makes it easier for the moral ones, too, because why suffer for the sake of doing what's right, if you can do what's right and be paid for it too? > (4) The market isn't working right now because the companies are gaining > money from free software are not using that money to reward developers. The major reason the market is not working is because proprietary development is the current paradigm. Most of the world's machines are run by proprietary code. Given (1) and (2), this is both morally wrong and inefficient. Being morally wrong was less of a problem until the Internet made all the machines interconnected and therefore a powerful force of control. But at any rate, the paradigm must change to free development going forward for reasons of (1) and (2). Now, the problem with going to a completely free paradigm is that 4 million developers working in proprietary need to be paid, because they (like current free software developers) need to support themselves and their families, and because they will fight the paradigm shift otherwise, since the change will adversely affect them financially if they are not paid. Also, it is hard to believe that even the current free software developers would not be better off being paid to develop free software. If they are working somewhere else to personally fund their free software development, they at the very least can work on free software full-time instead of having to take another job or have more personal free time. > (5) The way to correct the market is to create an organization that > sells free software and rewards developers. This company would have a > worldwide scope. It doesn't have to be worldwide in scope, though there is no good reason for it to not be worldwide. The structure could work regionally, too, because there will be great efficiency gains just going to that size. But it is best worldwide, because the community is worldwide. > The premisses I think are not correct are (3) and (4). > In (3) I'm not > sure if I want a single type of software development, I believe > diversity is beautiful (I believe this is another discussion). It is not clear whether you object to free software being the only paradigm or that you object to developers being paid for free software. I assume that it is the former by your statement of diversity. Remember the statement, "moderation in all things, except moderation". If free software is superior for reasons of (1) and (2), why have a different paradigm? Diversity is a beautiful thing, but not in all things, only in things that ought to have diversity. Do you want diversity in justice, so injustice is allowed? What about diversity in government systems - is tyranny a good thing, because you want diversity with democracy? These are superstructure items and you don't want diversity with them. In fact, they are paradigms and only one can exist at a time. But good superstructures allow diversity within them. The diversity works within them, not with them. > My real > problem is with (4). What I've seen of the market is that more and more > companies hire free software developers either letting them work on or > with the purpose of working on free software projects. Companies are of the Industrial Age, so they see everything in terms of exclusion and property. If they are adopting the free paradigm, it is only as a strategic, competitive move, because free software is a means for them, not an end. If you look carefully, most companies are not freeing their crown jewels, only their also-rans. They do this to compete with the market leader, hoping to topple the market leader. The issue is that if they are not philosophical about free software, in that it is a means not an end, they will close the code once they achieve their purpose. This is a real threat that only becomes apparent after they achieve their purpose. We already see some companies saying that they need to close code for profitability's sake. > As I see it, then there's the market. FSMC (Free Software Marketing > Company) will have to be extremely effective at marketing if it wants to > be a world-wide software supplier that, according to you, will compete > with a lot of companies that don't have that cost. Simply put, what will > be this company market advantage ? After all all the system depends on > the success of FSMC. I think you misunderstand the FSMC. The FSMC is the balancing point between the developers on one side and the marketers (assuming independent consultants) on the other. Both will be large networks. In fact, probably they will be mostly overlapping networks, where most independent consultants will be on both sides, as marketers and as developers. The point of the FSMC is to maintain the balance, so a strong marketer (which you were correctly concerned about in a prior email) does not get the market power to control the rest of the marketing function, and most importantly, get control of the developers, who are the most vulnerable. So the FSMC is a collective solution to protect themselves. This is the same as a democratic council protecting itself from strong leaders, who would otherwise try to overcome them. A correct structure balances off all the forces, so that no one person or force overwhelms the others. Without the FSMC, there will be marketers who become too strong and then will overcome the other marketers and once that is done, will overcome the developers. At that point, you are back to a Microsoft, which is a natural outcome without a properly balanced, postindustrial structure to countervail the natural tendencies of the marketers. > To me it seems that, as described, FSMC depends on getting a > distribution monopoly on some free software projects. This limitation on > distribution reduces the effectiveness of development by separating > users from developers, putting marketers in the middle of that > interaction. This introduction causes delays in the feedback loop that > we agree to be an important feature of free software development. This > means effectively reducing free software development efficiency. Again, I think you misunderstand. The marketing will be done locally. The FSMC is to keep the local marketers contained so they don't get too much power to take advantage of the rest. I suppose the confusion is also because the FSMC does 2 things which are both related. One is ensure that the costs of development is included in the price of the marketers, so that revenues flow back to the developers as salaries. The other is to maintain another balance, so that no marketer uses market power to get control of the developers and the code again. There are other forces that need to be balanced too, like investors/financial markets and hardware companies. But these are the same forces for traditional companies and are on the diagram. > The reason why I don't think the market is as gloomy as it seems is that > the number of companies that have been working with free software is > increasing, and most of them are not playing by corporate rules, but by > the community rules. Those who don't have less support by the community > and end up paying more for their product development, so they have to > ask more money from their customers. Yes. But the traditional corporate structure has built-in conflicts, because the interests of shareholders has to be paramount, under law, to all other groups, including the community. So as long as helping the community helps the shareholders, they can do it. But once the interests of the shareholders conflict with the community, the officers and directors are duty bound to look after the shareholders, not the community. If they resist, they will get sued personally by the shareholders. Even if some refuse and quit, there will be others who will come forward and do what is in the best interests of the shareholders. So the community should expect to lose in that contest with any traditionally structured company. The place where the conflict will show up is in closing the code, because proprietary code is always better for the one company once its code is the market leader. Closing the code is bad for the community, but good for the one company. So the company will be obligated to close it at some point, since there is not a countervailing force. In the CommCo, the countervailing force is that the community owns the company, so the community can resist the temptation, because the interests of the community and the shareholders now mostly overlap. If the officers and directors want to close the code, the community can elect new ones that look after the interests of the community. That is why it is called a CommunityCompany. > An example of this, as far as I can tell, has been Caldera. They had one > of the first "graphical" linux distributions, but they've fall beyond > most of others in market share. My point is that this happened because > most of its value-added software was not free and not even > distributable. They are also the ones that prove my point, since Love has always said that free software is not the way to go and is now moving more towards closed code. If and when we see major proprietary companies releasing all their code including their market leaders under the GPL, I will take another look at this analysis (which I believe will never happen). But until then, my presumption is that all traditional companies will use the free/open community to dislodge the current leaders with their second and third tier products and then lose their religion at some point and bring us back to the same proprietary paradigm with only the names of the market leaders at the top changed. In a way, this is exactly what Microsoft did in the last cycle, but within the proprietary paradigm. It used the developer community to dislodge IBM and then consolidated (and is continuing to consolidate) its power once it became the market leader. Now the community is trying to find someone else to topple Microsoft. We can either repeat the cycle or understand that the problem is the structure not the people working at the top of the structure. If a system has a throne, someone will mount it. It is not the king who creates the kingdom. It is the kingdom that creates a king. ++++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/26/01 4:09:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: jneves@ieee.org (Joao Miguel Neves) To: loic@gnu.org CC: TonStanco@aol.com, discussion@fsfeurope.org, fsfe-france@gnu.org On 26 May 2001 16:58:31 +0200, loic@gnu.org wrote: > > > - Software should be free because it can enforce controls on people. > > Is this what you meant or is there a typo ? > This is the main point of the document at http://FreeDevelopers.net/press/whydecl/, that software should be free because it's more like law than literature because it can enforce what and how people can do things. It's one of the documents Ton refered me too. > > My this is just a question of belief, but I don't believe that a single > > entity (FSMC) can represent either the diversity or the power of free > > software. I understand marketing has giving to people what they want or > > I think the idea is that this company is much more like a nation > (hence the declaration) than a company. In that sense it will represent > the diversity of Free Software in the same way as France represents > the diversity of the French culture. > My problem is that the company, as described now, goes against the 4 freedoms. It assumes that the company acts as the only distribution channel. I don't believe this can happen, even looking at it as a nation. Joao Miguel Neves +++++++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/26/01 6:35:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: TonStanco To: jneves@ieee.org, loic@gnu.org CC: TonStanco, discussion@fsfeurope.org CC: fsfe-france@gnu.org > My problem is that the company, as described now, goes against the 4 > freedoms. It assumes that the company acts as the only distribution > channel. I don't believe this can happen, even looking at it as a > nation. I have worked with RMS on the CommCo. He supports it. He thinks it is a noble experiment. It does not goes against the 4 freedoms of the GPL. +++++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/26/01 8:15:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: jneves@ieee.org (Joao Miguel Neves) To: TonStanco@aol.com CC: loic@gnu.org, TonStanco@aol.com, discussion@fsfeurope.org, fsfe-france@gnu.org On 26 May 2001 18:35:27 -0400, TonStanco@aol.com wrote: > > My problem is that the company, as described now, goes against the 4 > > freedoms. It assumes that the company acts as the only distribution > > channel. I don't believe this can happen, even looking at it as a > > nation. > > I have worked with RMS on the CommCo. He supports it. He thinks it is a noble > experiment. It does not goes against the 4 freedoms of the GPL. > I am really missing, because until now I understood that FSMC will pay developers to develop free software that FSMC will be the single point of distribution. For me this means that, effectively, developers will be trading their "freedom to make copies for others" for a salary. What am I missing ? -- Joao Miguel Neves +++++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/27/01 8:16:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: TonStanco To: jneves@ieee.org CC: loic@gnu.org, TonStanco, discussion@fsfeurope.org CC: fsfe-france@gnu.org > I am really missing, because until now I understood that FSMC will pay > developers to develop free software that FSMC will be the single point > of distribution. I think you want to put things in an old paradigm and this is different. The FSMC will not "pay developers to develop free software." The developers are not employees in the traditional sense. The developers will develop the software they want and if customers want to pay for it, it will be sold through the FSMC. The FSMC will not direct what developers need to work on what. The developers work like they do now like a free market, developing what they want, organizing themselves like they want. But say there are customers that want voice recognition applications, the FSMC will transmit that market information to the developers in FreeDevelopers. Then whoever wants to work on it and build cooperating/competing teams to work on it, can do so. Then what gets used and paid for, is distributed to the developers in an equitable way. > For me this means that, effectively, developers will be trading their > "freedom to make copies for others" for a salary. What am I missing ? That freedom remains. Anyone can take the software . The question is will everyone do it? That freedom has 2 parts if you think about it. The freedom to make a copy by colleagues who will use it and hack it. The freedom to make a copy by customers who will only use it. What most people do is assume that everyone is like them. But customers and colleagues are different. Most customers seldom just take the software even if it is free as in beer, because they don't want the frustration. For them paying $X for something that works easily is more important than paying $0, but having to spends hours or days making it work. Also, as loic has said it is never $0 anyway, because there are already marketing costs and other costs. We are just adding the development component to the price. The confused thinking is easily understood, if you think about something where you are a customer not a colleague. For example, when you need legal or medical services. Both of those are intellectual activities that society got right, i.e. they have the 4 freedoms of the GPL. (However, they originally were not free either, but have become free over time, just like software is doing now). So you can be your own lawyer or even your own surgeon, because all the information is in the law or medical library. But who does that? Only the expert. Everyone else goes to the expert. So just because the 4 freedoms are present (and they must remain present), doesn't mean they are actually used by everyone. They will be used only by the experts or those who want to become experts (and this takes time, interest and commitment). This is really obvious if you think of anything where you are not an expert, instead of the things you are an expert. So, just because customers can make copies, does not mean they will. Just like you wouldn't know what to do with law books or medical books unless you were a lawyer or doctor, they would not know what to do with the code. This doesn't mean you can't learn. But if they learn it, they then become an expert. But the vast majority of people never become experts in most things because it takes time and effort and they have other things they would rather do. So if you are like some in the community and say that everyone should know coding, then you should lead by example and learn law and medicine, first. If that repulses you, then you understand what most people feel with they are told to learn about computers. Everyone does not have to act the same, to be the same. All people are the same, just in different things. Yes, the analogy is not exact. But it is more like this, than not like this. This is the correct paradigm to think in, especially as the code becomes more complex. As I said, law and medicine both took this path as they moved into more complexity. In fact, law in the earliest times was really just speaking for yourself in front of judges (no law as in rules). But even then people over time went to experts to speak for them, because the experts developed expertise in persuasive speech. Now most people can speak, so it is not that they *couldn't* do it. It was that they chose not to do it and would rather pay the expert to do it for them. Also, what most developers find surprising is that governments and most businesses want to pay for development. They understand that sustainable development takes money and therefore are afraid of software that does not pay the developers, thinking that they will spend money to convert all their systems and then lose the support and will have to change back. If you put yourself in their shoes, you would do the same thing, because the software cost is the smallest cost of the system. Installing, support and training are the bigger costs. Also, downtime in mission critical applications can kill the business and its reputation, and is not worth the risk. [Which is why the statement, no one got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft was/is so powerful]. So, ironically for these customers, free as in beer is not a plus. It is a reason for not using the software. These customers especially will be the ones who will go to the FSMC and generally they will be enough to fund most of the development. We will make it the statement that, no one got fired for buying FSMC software. So even if everyone else just takes the software as you think they would, it will still work. But most of them won't either. Most people work for a living and want to be paid for their work. So they understand paying for things is a fair thing to do. What they don't like to do is pay for buggy or overpriced software. But if it goes to fund development by getting money to developers, many will understand. The minority who don't is not worth worrying about. It is a cost of doing business. Just like there will always be shoplifters, but most understand how the system works and that they must use some of the money they make working, for things that others must be paid to make. I know that using free software without paying is not like shoplifting. I use it only to say that a system works even if there are inefficiencies and losses in the system so that the system is not 100%. But we don't need a 100% system, because now we have a near 0% system. I would be happy with a 30-50% system. That itself would do a lot of good. Now, I have a challenge. I have spent a lot of time working on the CommCo and explaining it. Now, instead of putting me on the defensive and having to defend my system. Why don't you construct a better one? I find most people in the community attack any idea as bad, which is the easy thing to do, but then do nothing more. While an idea may be bad, the current situation can still be worse. It is silly to attack any new idea and remain with a bad status quo. If you want to defend the status quo, because everything is fine, you can do that too. So either defend the status quo or explain your better solution. But to be fair, it is time we reversed positions and you serve and I hit back ;-) ++++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/27/01 2:14:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: jneves@ieee.org (Joao Miguel Neves) To: TonStanco@aol.com CC: loic@gnu.org, TonStanco@aol.com, discussion@fsfeurope.org, fsfe-france@gnu.org First, thanks for your time and patience, I finally understood why it could work. On 27 May 2001 08:16:33 -0400, TonStanco@aol.com wrote: > Now, I have a challenge. I have spent a lot of time working on the CommCo and > explaining it. Now, instead of putting me on the defensive and having to > defend my system. Why don't you construct a better one? I find most people in > the community attack any idea as bad, which is the easy thing to do, but then > do nothing more. While an idea may be bad, the current situation can still be > worse. It is silly to attack any new idea and remain with a bad status quo. > > If you want to defend the status quo, because everything is fine, you can do > that too. So either defend the status quo or explain your better solution. > I will think about this (I like building systems, especially social ones), so I'll try to send you my results by the next weekend, I hope. Joao Miguel Neves ++++++++++ Subj: Re: The Community is the Company Date: 5/30/01 5:56:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: TonStanco To: jneves@ieee.org CC: loic@gnu.org, TonStanco, discussion@fsfeurope.org CC: fsfe-france@gnu.org Sorry for the long delay in response. I became very busy immediately after the last round and have been going to NY to met RMS for the last 2 days, which had very long commutes. BTW, do you mind if we post these email exchanges on our site to help explain the CommCo? > First, thanks for your time and patience, I finally understood why it > could work. It was fun. Thanks for your time and patience, too. Understanding the CommCo requires keeping a lot of new ideas in the air simultaneously, so it is not easy. It is so complex that after the logic is worked out as best as we can, the only way to be sure is to test it by experiment. The proof is in the success. There is a very simple test to perform and that is to float it in a very small IPO. The purpose of the IPO will not be to raise money (which was the purpose of an IPO in the Industrial Age), since the amount raised will be de minimis ($50,000-100,000), but to test the CommCo structure. The theory is that in the Intellectual Age, the entities don't been money, but they do need community and a focal point. If I am right in the logic, the CommCo will grow from almost nothing to be the largest software company and replace all of the proprietary companies within 10 years. This is a big expectation, I know, but it follows from the efficiency gains of the free software development methodology that closed proprietary code cannot compete with. In a sense, proprietary companies are selling blocks of ice and we have just invented refrigeration. > I will think about this (I like building systems, especially social > ones), so I'll try to send you my results by the next weekend, I hope. That would be very cool. I look forward to them.