what is a free-rider?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mbaehrlxer Nov 15, 2016 2:39 PM EDT |
we can't even properly define what a free-rider is. to get to a just definition we have to consider the context of the whole society. what does the supposed free-rider do with the software? would it be fair to call someone a free-rider if that person uses Free Software and Open Source to save money for their company, so that they in turn can make more profit, giving that person a bonus, never give anything back to the project, but then spend all their free time to care for homeless people in the streets? the point is, we do not know if a supposed free-rider is truly a free-rider for personal gain, or uses the benefit to do good elsewhere. in other words, what is a free-rider needs to be seen on a global social context. among all 7 billion people on this planet how many contribute to society, and how many receive from society? and how can we turn receivers into contributors? the issue about funding infrastructure is of course an important one, but i would not reduce it to a free-rider problem. instead it needs to be included among the many social causes that deserve our attention. greetings, eMBee. |
| AwesomeTux Nov 15, 2016 6:19 PM EDT |
"This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful..." - GPL I don't believe most free and open source software developers ever expect their user base to contribute back, they release their software likely because it is something they themselves needed that didn't exist, and they simply want to help anyone else in the same situation. |
| BernardSwiss Nov 15, 2016 7:44 PM EDT |
Actually, in this case (I'd suggest) the term "problem" is arguably as {ahem} problematic as the term "free rider". |
| penguinist Nov 15, 2016 8:22 PM EDT |
I've written and contributed original FOSS/GPL code, and also I try to file accurate bug reports whenever I find something in other contributor's code that could be improved. So I'm probably not what the author would describe as a free-rider. That said, I don't really get upset if other people use FOSS code without contributing back. I think we have these points to consider: 1. Many (maybe most) users simply don't have the skills or training to be developers. Just using FOSS software and spreading the happiness to friends makes the FOSS movement stronger. Let's leave them with a clean conscience. 2. In my part of the world we have a saying "What goes around comes around." By that we mean that when you do something good for someone then you have increased the likelihood that they will do something good for someone else. If enough of these chain-reactions start happening around you, some good will be eventually returned to you, maybe in ways you might not have imagined. 3. By contributing to FOSS I get an immediate reward. I get to feel good about myself and the small contribution I've made to make the world a little better. So my message to FOSS users would be to contribute back in whatever way you are able, not because you owe it or because you want to avoid being accused of being a free-rider, but because you yourself will personally benefit if you do. |
| cybertao Nov 16, 2016 12:29 AM EDT |
Free software is free for people to use however they see fit, provided it fits with the terms and conditions of the licensing. So there is no free-rider problem to be solved, it's an expected and desired outcome. |
| mbaehrlxer Nov 16, 2016 1:42 AM EDT |
well, the article is referencing research that shows that some critical projects could use more support. (take openssl for example) so there is indeed a problem. but, i agree that it's not a "free-rider problem". @penguinist: exactly my thoughts. here is my followup response to the author: you are expecting that for use of a public good we should pay back directly? you are not allowing that use of one public good can be paid for by creating another public good? you consider not paying back directly a problem? but is that really necessary? look at other public goods, like streets, public parks, public artwork, education, homeless shelters, charities. almost none of them are paid back for directly by their users. most of them are paid for by taxes, and some of them are paid for by other volunteers. do we have to pay back directly, or is paying forward ok? i am looking at Free Software and Open Source products not isolated but as part of the larger pool of all public goods that exist. i am expanding the "use" and "paying" for a public good to the whole pool, so that any use of that pool of public goods is paid for by putting anything else back into that pool. i am using "contribute to society" as a form of "social currency", so i am claiming that the person in my example is indeed paying for the use of Free Software and Open Source products. i think streets are a good analogy. initially streets just happened through continued use. eventually they were enforced and bridges were added by those who needed them. as communities grew, it was recognized that the community as a whole needed to take care of the streets and local public funds were used to build and maintain them. finally a network of national highways was built, paid for by national taxes. Free Software and Open Source follow a similar development. it started with people creating software for their own needs. communities are growing and funding their own development. and finally we recognize that there is a set of global infrastructure that is used by almost everyone and now we are trying to figure out how to pay for that. maybe, like national highways, it could be paid for by taxes? btw: the term "free-rider" also implies taking advantage of something for personal benefit. anyone who produces a public good, is most certainly not taking advantage of anything for their personal benefit. greetings, eMBee. |
| nmset Nov 16, 2016 10:39 AM EDT |
>i think streets are a good analogy. initially streets just happened through continued use ... ... paid for by national taxes. I am wondering if the analogy would hold by the continued general use of Microsoft software, i.e, should closed source software be considered part of the public pool ? Does it need to be paid by national taxes ? IMO, that would be an enormity. |
| mbaehrlxer Nov 16, 2016 11:39 AM EDT |
well, the whole issue with public goods and free-riders becomes a problem when the public good is depended on by a lot of people, but the existing resources to maintain that public good is not enough. so the question of paying taxes for microsoft software would only come up if microsoft ran out of money. in that situation, not only support of the software, but also many jobs are on the line, so i am pretty sure that someone will come up with a way to bail them out. whether we like it or not. greetings, eMBee. |
| nmset Nov 16, 2016 12:24 PM EDT |
>someone will come up with a way to bail them out That would also mean nationalization of a private company, a US company ! Those guys behind that would have to show much sagacity for a successful nationalization while hiding it. At the same time, if Microsoft (as an example) ran out of money, it would primarily mean there's no more public generalized demand of their products, which in turn renders bailing them out moot. Current users would then not need much incentive to switch to alternatives. Unfortunately, the article did not mention how much the reporters contribute to the commons. These kind of papers quickly get me nervous, that's why I jumped in the discussion. |
| mbaehrlxer Nov 24, 2016 7:43 AM EDT |
one commenter on the article has been asking: "how much contribution is enough?" my response: how much is enough, depends on the needs of the project. for openssl for example the contributions flowing back into it clearly were not enough. how much is enough, is going to be different in every case, dependent on the other contributions the user makes to the community (either the world community at large or the project community, or anything in between, take your pick) and it is dependent on the needs of the project itself, as well as the needs of the users. some projects are doing fine, and they don't need any contributions. and some are starving for resources. it is up to the community of users to find out if their needs are met, and if they aren't, to then go and increase contributions until their needs are covered. in the case of openssl this happened with the appearance of additional funding to support its development. the question that remains now is what other projects do need more resources to satisfy the needs of their users? this also contains the hidden question, of whether all users know that they are relying on software that needs better support. with openssl most users (and i am counting anyone with a linux based mobile phone here) did not (and still do not) know about it. greetings, eMBee. |
| patrokov Nov 29, 2016 1:57 PM EDT |
The problem is that "free-rider" in economics terms means that it's difficult or impossible to exclude a non-paying customer. The issue with free/open source is that often the author/publisher is choosing not to exclude or charge at all. They could, but choose not to. |
| Steven_Rosenber Dec 21, 2016 1:04 AM EDT |
Turning users into contributors should be an ideal, not a requirement. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!