Life Is Rich

Shortly after the iPhone arrived on the scene, I posted a rather lengthy essay on my thoughts about the hyped device. After the price drop and the efforts of many hackers to allow 3rd party development (two of my biggest issues), I decided to take the plunge and make one my very own.

For some background – I’ve owned a handful of PDA’s and phones of various makes over the years – including a few Palm devices, a couple iPaqs, and a whole slew of other Windows based PDA’s and phones (my latest being a T-Mobile MDA). These devices had varying pedigrees and varying connectivity options. Only one thing remained static across all of these devices – I stopped using them actively after a couple weeks or so. One or two may have made it a month or two. The other thing that was pretty consistent was the Microsoft OS crashing when trying to answer the phone or at some other truly inopportune time. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is be holding a ringing phone and not be able to answer it.

Fast forward to today. The iPhone has been generally considered a success despite it’s few flaws. To say that my expectations were low would be an exaggeration. Not that I don’t have great faith in Apple’s ability to produce an amazingly designed product. More that my past experiences with phones and PDAs reduced my expectation of how a device like the iPhone could revolutionize my use of technology.

So, after spending a few months with the iPhone, what can I say? First, the fact that I’m using it actively after three months says quite a bit. But the fact of the matter is this – the iPhone has changed the way I use technology on a day to day basis. For quite some time, I couldn’t be away from my computer for any period of time. Not because I’m some internet-addicted computer-obsessed nerd, but… o.k., it’s because I’m some internet-addicted computer-obsessed nerd who can’t pry himself from the constant stream of information and communication accessible from my broadband attached laptop. Well, guess what – the iPod can satiate that need for substantially long periods of time. Email? Check. Browser? Check. Useable phone? Check. Access to my photos and music? Check. It really is an amazing little device. Combine it with synchronized (with my laptop) access to all of my RSS feeds through Newsgator and I’m golden. The device just does so many things well that no other device of similar form factor has been able to accomplish. The collection of all these abilities has created a device that is revolutionary.

While you’ll have to pry my iPhone from my cold, dead, fingers, there are a few things which have kept this device from taking the world by storm. The projections are showing good, but not extraordinary sales. The lack of some truly rudimentary functionality is just unconscionable – task / to-do lists, synchronized notes, and synchronized documents to name the most glaring. The lack of a development SDK would help fill these gaps if one were available. The fortunate announcement of such a beast has helped calm my nerves a bit, but I’m still concerned about its implementation and restrictions that may be placed on the 3rd party developer. The lack of Flash in the browser has been incredibly annoying. I believe that this is likely a political issue more than a technical one, and therefore don’t expect to see it anytime soon if ever… although one can still hope.

In the end, this device still falls on the side of revolutionary for me – as evolutionary would have never survived more than a months worth of usage. Also, I’ve never missed a call due to a locked up operating system… and that’s saying a lot.

Following my trilogy on free software, it’s with a curious eye that I’ve been watching Newsgator’s move to offer all of their client software for free. This isn’t free in the open-source / libre sense but in the gratis – free as in beer sense. I was already a bit wary after Newsgator’s purchase of the NetNewsWwire product some time ago.

Let me just state uncategorically, NetNewsWire just rocks. This may be my most used software on my Mac. It’s well-designed and stable as a four-legged stool in a schoolhouse during summer vacation (?). The developer of the app is responsive to requests and seems like a great guy – and no one can blame someone for providing for themselves and their family. Newsgator’s purchase seemed to bring no immediate negatives – the same developer that was always working on this beautiful creation continued to do so. In addition, Newsgator syncing (which allows me to catch up on my RSS feeds from the iPhone) has been a real boon. My only concern rested in the fact that some indie developer with a close ear to the customers had been replaced by a corporation (even though a small one) that had many more interests and concerns than mine (a customer for a satellite product in its portfolio).

The announcement a couple weeks back that Newsgator was offering all its clients for free shocked me. It wasn’t that I was peeved that I paid for something that was now free. It was that I paid for a specific product and the expected value from said payment. Had the value been changed by it going free? Would the product continue to receive the attention from its customers if it no longer had paying customers? Also, as I’ve stated in other ways before – there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Newsgator is a corporation – and its motivations are certainly not to give away free software just to be nice. Where was the monetization of this gratis software?

Apparently, the motivation was two pronged. First, they apparently are seeking market share to drive sales of their enterprise solutions. This seems reasonable and doesn’t have serious negative impacts to the customer (although it does bely where their interests lie and for which customer they will be more reactive too). The second is a little more disconcerting. Newsgator will be using your reading and selection habits for their own purposes. The FAQ and queries to the execs never came clear on how possible it was to opt-out of this data collection – it appeared to be dependent on specific apps and could possibly involve deactivating your syncing.

I’m a bit peeved that I paid for a product that had been devalued – and now conceivably that product could be changed to pillage my privacy as part of the price of it being free (which I obviously didn’t agree to when forking over my money). Fortunately, it appears that NetNewswire is one of the apps that allows you to continue to sync while deactivating the personal information. But the whole thing almost feels like a bait and switch. In the end, the data is fairly anonymous and unlikely a serious risk to my privacy – but something about this whole experience has left a bad taste in my mouth. It feels “Microsoftish”.

As an aspiring independent Mac software developer, giving away the hard work of a developer does devalue all software. Rogue Amoeba discusses this as well. I also feel sorry for those trying to break into the RSS feed market. It’s hard to compete with free, but as I stated, NetNewsWire truly isn’t free. You pay a very small cost in privacy. If that cost becomes more onerous or more expensive with time, their might be another opening for a competitor some day. Until then, I’ll keep using NetNewsWire and welcome our new Newsgator overlords…

In parts I & II, I talked a bit about my distrust of free software and open source’s legacy. Where do the evil corporations fit into this and where is all the money coming from? I already stated that developers have to eat and most of those working on open-source are being paid by someone. Corporations are purely based in self-interest and therefore would never subsidize or support an industry that does not have fiscal reward. The little moneymaking secret is the GPL.

GPL does not assign the ownership right. If you GPL your work, you still own it (unless you assign it over to the FSF and Richard). Of course, anyone can pretty much use your software for free (as in beer) – or at least the current version of it, as long as they don’t want to use it in proprietary software. So there’s the rub. If I want to do anything but create other open-source software, I can’t do it with your GPL code.

So what is an enterprising company going to do? Since they still own the code, they are going to release the code under a non-free (in either sense) proprietary license and charge you for it. No harm done right?

The harm is that these organizations sell themselves as philanthropic shepherds of the code. As people modify and improve the code, the ownership rights are generally relegated back to the original owner of the base project. The only problem is, these shepherds then turn around and sell the hard work of the community to others. They restrict how all of the contributors use the code and only allow true “freedom” when you put up the hard cash.

No one forces these developers to give their free time so someone else can profit off the work of their labor. I just think it’s ethically and morally wrong. The “owners” of MySQL are “revered” for their use of GPL, but are truly just seeking a buck. As a matter of fact, the GPL crowd berates the proprietary crowd for their money-seeking ways but are completely blind to the fact that they themselves are facilitating profiteering.

Woe be to the indie developer who wishes to sell a proprietary application to feed his family. He’s a capitalist pig. Companies profiting off their GPL software, idealist saviors of all, are fine and good. It’s just bogus. At least it’s very clear the indie developer’s motivations. They don’t hide behind a thin veil of philanthropy.

What is mildly amusing is the recent announcements of the sell of MySQL AB to Sun and Trolltech to Nokia. Both of these companies (MySQL and Trolltech) make money by selling software under proprietary licenses while marketing themselves as virtuous purveyors of GPL code. A single license of Qt from Trolltech can easily cost upwards of $3000 or more. Those who truly understand the licensing can see the possible fun. Either of these companies could stop licensing their code under GPL tomorrow. Sure, you could still use the version of source code available today in your GPL projects, but you would ALWAYS be required to buy the proprietary version for use in your own proprietary code. Of if you wanted the latest and greatest. Of if you wanted the support that only the parent company could likely provide. How is this free?

There is such a sense of security in the GPL. It is purely a fallacy. I will note, some GPL (primarily owned by the FSF) is not dual-licensed and can only be used in other non-proprietary uses – and therefore can’t be monetized really at all. I still don’t consider it free – but it at least isn’t being leveraged hypocritically to make money.

Without the poison pill of the GPL, the other free licenses encourage healthy participation by corporation and individual alike. At least its a straight up proposition. Interestingly enough, I think some of the best of the free software is licensed under the BSD / Apache licenses. At least it truly is free and not tainted by veiled commercial interests (the commercial interests are out in the open for all to see). If a company wants to contribute and make their source available – great. At least it isn’t encumbering my potential use down the line. As much as I dislike IBM, I think they may offer the best example of honest and positive use of open-source (with mostly BSD-style licensing). They employ developers to work on open-source code – returning most of the benefits to the community, then monetize proprietary additions and services based on these open-source projects. This would be nearly impossible with GPL (NOTE: I’m avoiding some pretty complicated licensing / legal nuances regarding GPL’ed operating systems such as Linux and referring primarily to everything else – libraries, applications, etc).

The fact of the matter is that software is something worth paying for – whether it’s IBM paying for it or some indie writing proprietary software for sale. It has value through the labor and innovation required to build it. The GPL dual-licensing tries to hide the fact that it is worth the effort to do in the first place, pretends that software should be “free” from some morally superior high ground, then turns around and forces you to pay for true freedom.

Before I conclude, I want to make one thing very clear. Many amazing developers from many different motivations, both philanthropic and to feed their families (both perfectly reasonable mind you) have created some incredible free software (GPL and otherwise). Nothing in these articles is intended to detract from the work and effort of these developers.

My intentions were twofold. First, I just want to make sure that software development is not seen as a worthless or valueless task. In my mind, software development is nearer art than engineering, or at least I hope it be so. To be honest, whether art or purely manufacturing, it still deserves remuneration.

Secondly, I want the corporations who deceptively hide behind the veil of the philanthropic motivations of the GPL and “Free Software” while monetizing the free labor of others to be exposed for the ilk they are. At least no longer idolized as generous and benevolent with little monetary interest while indies are demonized as capitalist blood-suckers. That’s probably more my own failing than anything else – being bothered that so many venerate what I see as hypocrisy then torch those who are honestly just trying to feed their families.

As a developer and heavy consumer of software, I find myself using both free and proprietary software all the time. I generally seek the best value for my buck. Sometimes it’s proprietary, sometimes it’s free. Sometimes I value free because of the freedom it gives me to extend and control my data. I certainly intend to continue using both. Will I steer clear of those who try to envision the ideal of free software while luring you into the trap of use restrictions? Absolutely. Especially when two good products exist for which to choose (i.e. PostgreSQL vs. MySQL). While open-source can be very positive, the GPL for me will always incite distrust, and those who use it for monetary gain at the expense of developers and the rest of the software development community, with disdain..

Enough! This is ridiculous! My entitlement-self wants some McLovin’ from Apple in the way of updated Macbook Pros and new LCD screens! While they’re at it, all this must-have hardware should be free (gratis) since, you know, that’s the way software should be, and I don’t see why it shouldn’t apply to hardware as well…

Seriously though, Apple’s stable of LCDs are getting mighty stale. Apple apologists state that we don’t need new ones because the old ones are still so good. Hmmmm… not so much. They are certainly still the most aesthetically pleasing of anything I’ve seen, but the specs are woefully behind the competition when it comes to color gamut and accuracy, refresh rates, etc. Dell has had two product updates on their 30″ LCD during the lifetime of Apple’s current 30″ LCD. The same can pretty much be claimed for the entire line. Also, where’s the built-in iSight?

As far as the Macbook Pro – these buggers are still pretty slick, but we have the lovely new Intel Penryn processors that need homes. While unlikely – especially considering Apple’s trend to make everything completely user unserviceable – please, please, please make the hard drive modular and easily replaceable by the end-user like every other professional laptop (and even the Macbook in some respects).

Now that I’ve got that out of my system, can anyone loan me some cash for the new Macbook Pros and LCDs that are surely coming soon? The bankers don’t seem so willing to give out their money anymore – something about non-prime numbers (6? 10?)…

K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

Ok, not quite. Google isn’t too happy either… This is pretty much old news now, but it’s been so hectic at my day job I haven’t had much time to digest it.

I don’t even know what to think about all this. Is this a desperate move by Microsoft? Is this a desperate situation for Yahoo? Is this a desperate response by Google?

In my last post, I talked a bit about “free software” and those who work on it. So, where did free software come from and what exactly is free software?

Richard Stallman could be considered the granddaddy of the open source movement. I mean, he even looks like a socialist hippie – not that I’m judging! He pretty much invented the GNU Project and set up the Free Software Foundation. The GNU Project spawned the GNU General Public License (GPL) that is pretty much THE defining legal license for free software. More about that in a moment. This guy pretty much believes that all code should be free. As a matter of fact, he bristles at the term “open-source software” and requires those who interview him to use the term “free software”. Like him or hate him (and a lot of people do both), Richard really believes that software should be free. I truly believe has has no ulterior motive to profit in his stance. He truly is the antithesis of capitalism and free-market in regards to software.

Obviously, even the term free or open-source software is often debated, even though they are generally used interchangeably. And what does free even mean? The actual purists believe free software should be called, “free, libre and open-source software” or FLOSS. What does it really boil down too? Software can be primarily grouped into one of two classes on the “free” scale:

1. The Libre Doctrine or Free as in Speech: Freedom to run, study, modify, copy and improve the software – which obviously requires source (hence open-source).
2. Gratis or Free as in Beer: No cost.

Obviously, if software meets the free as in speech test, it’s unlikely that it won’t also be free as in beer – i.e. Firefox or Linux. Although it is entirely possible to have gratis software that is proprietary (closed-source), such as Internet Explorer.

Free software is generally defined by its license. Probably the most common free license is Richard’s GPL. GPL is basically a license for software that states that the software may not be redistributed without its source, and any modifications or additions to said software must also be redistributed as source. This meets all the criteria of both free as in speech and free as in beer. What’s interesting is the “poison pill”. If you included any GPL code in software that you are intending to distribute, that software in essence becomes GPL as well. Therefore, a commercial entity cannot include any GPL in their proprietary software or it would no longer be proprietary. In my mind, the GPL is inherently not free as it places serious (but intentional) encumbrances on its use.

A number of other popular open-source licenses exist that meet the libre freedom test I define above but do not include the “poison pill” – such as the Apache License, BSD License, LGPL (Lesser GPL), etc. Funnily, most in the Stallman camp do not consider these truly free, as derivative software may become proprietary. In other words, a commercial entity could use the software in their own applications or modify it and not be required to release the source publicly (or give it away gratis). As a matter of fact, the Stallman camp considers the poison pill part of the Libre Doctrine outright – software is NOT free without the requirement to redistribute all modifications and additions.

These two camps and the philosophies for which they follow could have likely instigated a thousand year war to the death if it weren’t fortunately impossible to kill someone via flame-messages on the Internet.

The GPL is a funny thing. As stated, I really believe it was created with some utopian image of nirvana, where developers coded for free and were fed grapes by harems of adoring hot women. Or at least something idealistically similar. Actually, Richard Stallman does not believe developers are creators:

“please let’s not call them creators, they are not gods but authors”

…although he denies them the same rights of authors of other “types” of works. The irony is what the GPL has become – the tool of corporations to pillage developers and reap the monetary rewards. This can conceivably be done with the other free licenses as well, but no where near as mischievously. How? You’ll have to wait for the next entry in As the Free Software Turns…

Ok, I sorta lied in Part I. At the end, I stated I would answer the question to who would pay developers to give away the hard work of their labor and what they get from such expense. I haven’t quite done that yet, but I’m almost there, and now I’ve stated that GPL is the evil tool of the corporate empire and is taking advantage of the poor, helpless developers. Part III (the last I promise) will answer all of that – coming soon…

Non-sequitur. I’m interjecting this in the middle of my 3-part series on open-source / free software. Sorry about that. Sometimes that’s just the way I roll.

If I was to label my occupation, or at least my desired occupation, I would consider myself a “software developer”. As Jonathan Wise notes on his blog, in the U.S., this role is generally called the “software engineer”.

This makes some sense – but engineering generally entails a mathematical precision to working a problem. While software development can be very process oriented, you can very rarely generate a defined process to solving a particular problem much in the same way that you can build a building, a dam or a car. In my mind – and maybe this is my own wistful delusion – a software developer is more like the traditional building architect crossed with a carpenter. The software development process entails art, design, logic, math, and command of the tools and medium.

Jonathan states it quite eloquently:

A software developer must be part writer and poet, part salesperson and public speaker, part artist and designer, and always equal parts logic and empathy.

Interestingly, executives and corporate types want software engineers – since this instills a sense of easily definable work units and measurable deliverables. You can easily measure engineering work. You can easily define engineering work. You can easily reproduce engineering work. As soon as you mention any of the less “engineering”-like skillsets, software development becomes a horribly scary risk to executive management. In some devilish way, I enjoy this fact.

This whole “free software” and open source thing has always made me a bit uncomfortable. I’m a developer by trade. I write code for a living (or manage those who do). The thought of giving away my hard work conjures wonderful images of plumbers and electricians and carpenters sweeping into my house to overhaul my horribly outdated kitchen, producing a beautiful work of art that my wife has been wanting for years, then waltzing out with nary a hint of payment.

“Ah, but information is supposed to be free! Software is just information.” Bullcrap. If you want to follow that slippery slope argument to it’s conclusion, it’ll be hard to defend that tact without generally accepting a deeply socialist society. Or, you’ll have a bunch of starving programmers, artists, journalists, authors, musicians, etc… or more likely, very few of them at all. The other tact states that developers can make money from support. Yeah – developers are generally really good at that. They really enjoy it too. During their spare time from coding. Again, bullcrap.

So, where does that leave the world of open source? In most parts of the world, if you don’t work, you don’t eat. Or at least don’t eat well. If you have to make money to live, the only people who can work on free software are either 1) independently wealthy, 2) living off the bounty of others, or 3) being paid to work on open source for some greater capitalistic motivation.

Option one is pretty rare – and could conceivably find itself in about any field. If you happen to know any independently wealthy plumbers who can come fix my sink and run a line to my fridge for free, please contact the email address on this web page. Option two is a bit more common – I mean, I spent a lot of time coding as a kid while sucking my parents dry. Most of it ended up in games for BBS’s. Ahh, how I miss those days when I didn’t have to worry about pesky plumber bills. You can also include those people in option two who are trying to kickstart their careers in software development by putting in some time in the open source world (usually while under the parental umbrella or working in another field to pay the bills). If I had to guess, I would say options one and two relate to about 10% of open source contributors – and that’s probably inflated.

So, that leaves the lion share of the mysterious open source developers in option #3. Capitalistic motivation. Hardly philanthropic. So, who would pay developers to give away the hard work of their labor and what do they get from such expense? Probably not something that’s “free”.

In my next post, I’ll talk about Richard Stallman, the GPL, and the answer to that question…