I prefer to exclude the word "Free" from the conversation altogether, because, as (the rock singer) Alice Cooper put it,
"nothing's free." In fact, computer software is certainly one of the most expensive things that man has ever devised, whether that man is getting paid money for it or not. In fact, it is "that hideous expense" that is
driving the market and professional demand for open-source development models. (That, and the proven fact that it works.)
I suggest that a better term would be,
"cooperative development."
Many hands make light work. A rising tide lifts all boats. Software that
needs to be developed and maintained, for the betterment of many, might not be able to economically support any single "vendor." And if it does single-handedly support a single vendor, it might not be able to do so to the extent that the community-at-large
needs for that particular product to be pushed forward. Hence, the cooperative software-development model, and the not-for-profit community foundation as an alternative funding model.
The various open-source licenses (GPL
x, etc.) were drafted by lawyers and are recognized internationally as legitimate copyright licenses. Legal ownership can be vested in a foundation, and the copyright owner is free to "give away" the software if the owner so desires,
and to further stipulate that derivative works must not become proprietary. (This stipulation becomes a binding contract and cannot be revoked at-will by the owners.) So, the necessary legal footings have been established to exist, and have been tested and confirmed by case law.
The only product out there that I know of which is carefully designated (and scrupulously maintained) as "public domain" is SQLite ... an
entirely professional-grade product that is deployed in cell-phones (and just about everywhere else these days, representing millions of US Dollars' worth of ongoing development effort. Why is it deployed this way? Because, if it were not, it could not exist, and the benefits could not be obtained by any engineering team anywhere. (So, the law does not even require that "a copyright" must exist, and certain engineering teams see explicit advantage in seeing to it that it doesn't.
C'est la vie.)
"This is not miles of fenced-in pastures: this is open-range. Miles and miles of fertile fields and not a fence in sight. By the way, that took a lot of work."
So, what motivates "a developer" to work on, say, Linux or Apache or MySQL? The very same reasons that motivate a company like IBM. Both entities are contributing something of
extreme market-value to a collective effort ... time that might well be worth $200 (USD) an hour or more. No, they're not receiving cash-on-the-barrelhead for their work. But they
are still receiving fair compensation: namely, the fact that the product that they are contributing to is moving forward technically, and that it will always remain available for their use as well as the use of the community.
Companies have been willing to invest many millions of dollars into "one-off" applications used only by, and only available to,
their own companies. The cooperative model is much less costly and more efficient. You
receive the benefit of the collectively developed software, along with a guarantee that it will always remain
non-proprietary, in exchange for your voluntary "contribution in kind." The lines between what is open and what is proprietary are clearly drawn, and legally enforceable. That's what gave you: OS/X, iPod, iPad, iPhone,
and the hot-on-their-heels competitor, Android. That's what makes Linux an operating system that runs on more than
twenty hardware platforms, from mainframe computers to wireless routers. No one has ever done that before. No one has even come close.
No doubt you've seen the credit-card commercials:
"Priceless."
Therefore:
- Is it "open source?" Of course. But is it "Free?" Absolutely not.
- Is it "developed without direct monetary contributions derived from market sales?" Yes.
- Is the developer in question "not receiving a salary other stipend, for the work being performed, while performing the work?" This is quite likely not to be the case.
- Are developers "doing it out of the goodness of their heart?" Well, that depends on how interpret the question.
- Is it a new-and-novel development model which has produced "$$ solid $$ commercial $$ benefits $$" that could not have been obtained any other way? Yes.
- Is it a panacea? Does it replace other models? No. It has benefits, and it has boundaries. This is clearly understood by all, because the benefits are worthy and the boundaries are acceptable.
