At least in Finland they have begun to make textbooks available under permissive licenses. Example: http://avoinoppikirja.fi/ . I am sure you can find examples such as this elsewhere.
Likely at least some of the business models we’ve seen at open source work in these sort of domains too. You can still print the books for instance and make money out of that. The writers get some padding for their CV and maybe earn some opportunities they would have missed otherwise.
Just having things open doesn’t mean there cannot be business. Openness enables new kind of ways to collaborate and in some ways raises the bar higher. I would say that’s the greatest benefit.
I think it’s worth remembering that there are plenty of corners of the software universe where there is no open source. And plenty of others where the open source software that exists is a pale imitation of the closed alternatives.
Though there may be substantial cultural components to these variations, I think there are “harder” business model issues at play too. That is, _someone_ has to pay the bills for the hard, dirty work of software development and maintenance.
I agree that it’s interesting to think about non-traditional approaches to intellectual property (or whatever you want to call it, for those who are in the camp that dislikes that term). However, I disagree with your implication that existing arrangements in various industries are mere accidents of habit.
Many books were made free in order to increase the interest in some product/service.
Maybe a fiction writer could be paid to make a free book, so they can release a TV series after that.
I have no idea how they can benefit in the pharmaceutical industry.
That is, _someone_ has to pay the bills for the hard, dirty work of software development and maintenance.
Absolutely, but people have to pay the bills whether it is open source or not.
And open source software works because people do the hard and dirty work. Sure, there is lots of hobby projects… but this is not what my post was about.
The Linux kernel is the real thing… not a hobby.
Bensays:
[Sorry if I’m picking nits here, but …]
I understand that there are tremendously successful open source projects (Linux, language implementations, databases, network servers, web browsers, …).
There are also good, but persistently marginal open source projects (lots of desktop apps).
And there are software domains where open source is beyond marginal (games, boring corporate bookkeeping, specialized manufacturing stuff, …).
My understanding of your main hypothesis is that the “real difference” between domains where open source flourishes and those where it does not is cultural. That is, some markets are populated by people who get the value of open source and some are not. While I agree that culture is important, any project or business needs a viable funding model to thrive.
An example from a market I know something about: The licensing costs for semiconductor design automation software are astronomical. There are open source cousins of the closed tools, but very, very few people use them for designing real products. Are these (closed source) tool vendors at some kind of competitive disadvantage? If so, I don’t see how.
What’s really important to me is smart advocacy for open source. In general, I like open source a lot. I’ve contributed to open source software. But I think it’s incorrect to assume that open source is simply and universally a better model than closed source. And starting from that assumption doesn’t seem particularly productive to me.
If I found myself in conversation with a leader in the textbook market (or an entrepreneur who wanted to get into the textbook market), I would definitely not say “look, open source is successful in domain X [which has no connection with textbooks], therefore you should give open source a try in your domain”.
Are these (closed source) tool vendors at some kind of competitive disadvantage?
No. But that wasn’t my claim.
Rather my claim is that once everyone adopts open source software, once it is part of the culture, in some domain, then it becomes very hard for competitors to reject it.
But I think it’s incorrect to assume that open source is simply and universally a better model than closed source.
That’s not what I wrote. Read my closing paragraph again.
I would definitely not say “look, open source is successful in domain X [which has no connection with textbooks], therefore you should give open source a try in your domainâ€.
At least in Finland they have begun to make textbooks available under permissive licenses. Example: http://avoinoppikirja.fi/ . I am sure you can find examples such as this elsewhere.
Likely at least some of the business models we’ve seen at open source work in these sort of domains too. You can still print the books for instance and make money out of that. The writers get some padding for their CV and maybe earn some opportunities they would have missed otherwise.
Just having things open doesn’t mean there cannot be business. Openness enables new kind of ways to collaborate and in some ways raises the bar higher. I would say that’s the greatest benefit.
There is a list of open source books for tech:
http://www.freetechbooks.com/
I think it’s worth remembering that there are plenty of corners of the software universe where there is no open source. And plenty of others where the open source software that exists is a pale imitation of the closed alternatives.
Though there may be substantial cultural components to these variations, I think there are “harder” business model issues at play too. That is, _someone_ has to pay the bills for the hard, dirty work of software development and maintenance.
I agree that it’s interesting to think about non-traditional approaches to intellectual property (or whatever you want to call it, for those who are in the camp that dislikes that term). However, I disagree with your implication that existing arrangements in various industries are mere accidents of habit.
All these things that can be free, generally have some industries/companies that support these works as an investment. Like Linux Kernel: Google, IBM, …
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linux-foundation/who-writes-linux-2013
Many books were made free in order to increase the interest in some product/service.
Maybe a fiction writer could be paid to make a free book, so they can release a TV series after that.
I have no idea how they can benefit in the pharmaceutical industry.
@Ben
That is, _someone_ has to pay the bills for the hard, dirty work of software development and maintenance.
Absolutely, but people have to pay the bills whether it is open source or not.
And open source software works because people do the hard and dirty work. Sure, there is lots of hobby projects… but this is not what my post was about.
The Linux kernel is the real thing… not a hobby.
[Sorry if I’m picking nits here, but …]
I understand that there are tremendously successful open source projects (Linux, language implementations, databases, network servers, web browsers, …).
There are also good, but persistently marginal open source projects (lots of desktop apps).
And there are software domains where open source is beyond marginal (games, boring corporate bookkeeping, specialized manufacturing stuff, …).
My understanding of your main hypothesis is that the “real difference” between domains where open source flourishes and those where it does not is cultural. That is, some markets are populated by people who get the value of open source and some are not. While I agree that culture is important, any project or business needs a viable funding model to thrive.
An example from a market I know something about: The licensing costs for semiconductor design automation software are astronomical. There are open source cousins of the closed tools, but very, very few people use them for designing real products. Are these (closed source) tool vendors at some kind of competitive disadvantage? If so, I don’t see how.
What’s really important to me is smart advocacy for open source. In general, I like open source a lot. I’ve contributed to open source software. But I think it’s incorrect to assume that open source is simply and universally a better model than closed source. And starting from that assumption doesn’t seem particularly productive to me.
If I found myself in conversation with a leader in the textbook market (or an entrepreneur who wanted to get into the textbook market), I would definitely not say “look, open source is successful in domain X [which has no connection with textbooks], therefore you should give open source a try in your domain”.
Ben
@Ben
Are these (closed source) tool vendors at some kind of competitive disadvantage?
No. But that wasn’t my claim.
Rather my claim is that once everyone adopts open source software, once it is part of the culture, in some domain, then it becomes very hard for competitors to reject it.
But I think it’s incorrect to assume that open source is simply and universally a better model than closed source.
That’s not what I wrote. Read my closing paragraph again.
I would definitely not say “look, open source is successful in domain X [which has no connection with textbooks], therefore you should give open source a try in your domainâ€.
I agree.