I could write a big essay and I almost did, but I'll shorten it.

The world will never be open source. But, lots of awesome tools, libraries, programming languages, and servers, are. Get a job working on web applications, because you'll get to use lots of free and open technology that way, and likely contribute back to projects.

Open source is not the answer to every problem. Proprietary software beats it in several ways and will never disappear. Anyone telling you something else is ignoring the overwhelming mound of data called reality. OTOH, I love open tools and prefer them over proprietary ones by far. But, there's not a damn chance in the world that the next big thing everyone uses is going to be developed bazaar style.

Open source might produce some better software, but companies are the most efficient beast for producing anything. Companies will only open source things when it benefits them (logically), and since open sourcing code will not benefit companies 100% of the time, the primary producers of software (companies) will prevent this open source utopia from ever existing.

I do work on web applications for a living. So I get to use lots of great free software. But all too often, the fruit of my labor is heavily restricted by copyright and licensing or, worse, neither used nor allowed to be re-used because the idea didn't take off. Yet the shareholders still want to fiercely protect it.

Why can't there be more open-source companies? Gittip is the only example I know of so far. The catch 22 seems to be how can a company grow if its products are open source, or how can it remain open source while somehow charging customers?

look at wordpress, magento or ubuntu they take consulting and hosting payments but their main product are open source.

It seems ghost blogging platform will use the same business model.

I feel like you just used his submission to take the opportunity to write out a personal diatribe.

He specifically said he did not want to be an extremist but rather "how can I live so that the benefits of open-source are maximized while the detriments of closed-source are minimized?"

In the end, you didn't offer anything useful that addresses his question.

To answer the OP's question: use open source products whenever convenient, and almost as importantly, assist with the development of OSS whenever possible, be it code, documentation, or helping newbies.

Volunteerism, public-funded research projects, and progressive open-source-friendly companies are the best thing we FOSS advocates have until business models that are more appropriate for the Information Age become popular.

Commercial and closed-source software exists because we've accepted the foisting of a manufacturing-age business model upon intangible (digital) works. It is inherently unfair to charge by-the-copy for goods that cost $0 to manufacture, but we accept the obscene profits that the industry winners make because it's hard and risky to envision or implement other models.

Many FOSS licenses including the GPL encourage the programmer to charge as much as she wishes for the software. But, if we allow the customer the same rights as they have with tangible (physical) goods, then they're allowed to turn around and give away copies for nothing, undercutting the original developer. So we might as well just give it away.

If only there were a way to ensure that the original developer gets compensated for the time they spend developing their work, but still permits software to be sold without draconian restrictions.

I was really excited when Kickstarter came along because that was the closest thing to a "fair" business model that I had encountered: customers don't receive the product until enough people agree to purchase the product.

If more marketplaces existed that we creators of "intangible goods" could take advantage of, I think we'd see a lot more, higher-quality FOSS software. Creative commons by-sa-licensed works of illustration, literature, and music, too.

Kickstarter's model is one of many variants. If this sort of thing is interesting to you, google "Dominant Assurance Contracts": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract

GNU imposes arbitrary burdens and restrictions upon use, too. There are licenses and the underlying logic of intellectual property rights remains unchanged as well as claims of interest in derivative works.

TANSTAAFL

I don't subscribe to the entire GNU/GPL philosophy. But it does serve as a useful standard or benchmark of software freedom. GPL, Public domain, Creative Commons, MIT, and BSD-style licenses all serve their purpose and are all preferable to proprietary licenses or EULAs.

In my opinion, two issues tend to be conflated - licensing and access to source code. That these are separate issues is obvious - on the one hand, by looking at the Creative Commons License where access to the original material is no different than it is with regard to a work published by Disney. On the other hand, a proprietary license may provide access to source code - this is less common today than several decades ago, and certainly less common in consumer facing applications than B2B software.

GNU is an interesting philosophical position, and one I admire to a significant extent. But it is not a universal solution. Emacs is not for my mom. Word is simply a better option - for much the same reason that the factory manuals are a better option than Wikipedia when my mechanic tunes my Cooper.

So proprietary software can have open source code, even living on github? What kind of license is that? I know that GPL and other open source licenses are OK with charging money for distribution of binaries, but usually with the source code.

MySQL is dual licensed under GPL and a proprietary license.

http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/

Ah yes, a dual license. But to dual license the project has to own all the rights to every part of the system, correct? That is, it can't incorporate other libraries that are incompatible with the proprietary license.

I wonder if there is any way to turn FOSS into a mainstream movement. The only thing really stopping FOSS from becoming more commonplace is the lack of consumer demand and awareness.

If you are in the UK sign up for my only just started campaign. http://www.oss4gov.org

Basically local government should find local developers to build FOSS software to run tiny government only problems (electoral roll management software).

Open source code is a public good and should be publically funded ( but there needs to be some competitive market solution - still some kincks to work out)

Code for America has similar ideas in USA - they have fellowships to be applied for now

> tiny government only problems (electoral roll management software).

Is electoral roll management software really a tiny problem?

Well it's one of 2000 services local govt are expected to supply so it's a niche. Plus it seems to be a dedupe issue along with pretty standard database work (UK has what 50 m voters? SQLite would manage that !

Important yes - tiny maybe

Then again I don't know anything about the electoral roll mgmt domain and more importantly I cannot go read any code to learn

(Well the law is the code)

Ah, okay. I was mistaking "tiny" for "really easy". Some of that de-duping and verification is probably quite tricky.

I do agree with you though, it'd be great if government was using better software and making better use of open source.

Its probably not the best example - its clear because only governments do electoral roll stuff. But it is not really a discrete application one can put in the cloud.

I am pretty confident that I can find suitable pilot applications and get council leaders interested in seeing them delivered - through the new shortcuts of GCloud.

Join the mailing list. GO on, you know you want to :-)