Open Source, Closed Documentation? 605
sunset asks: "Recently I was motivated to look at WebGUI which looks like a pretty cool open source project. However I was having trouble making it work with Red Hat 8.0 which includes Apache 2.0. This seems like a reasonable thing to want, as Red Hat 8 has been out since September and Apache 2 has been publicly released for close to a year. Checking the WebGUI community discussion forum, I found that
someone else had already inquired about this. Following the rest of the thread, you learn that the product's vendor considers this information to be proprietary, and that you must pay $50 to join their Support Forum to get the information. It gets better. The associated Membership Agreement for the Support Forum includes the clause 'You shall not to share [sic] the information contained herein with any other party.' So if I join up, I am locked out of sharing valuable information with the open source community about how to install this open source product. In the end I found out what I needed to know without giving up my rights or my hard-earned bucks, but frankly this attitude from the vendor pisses me off. Am I alone in this? What do you think?"
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only difference here is that:
* The support provider is the -author-, so they definitely know their stuff (not always a given).
* The package doesn't get free support from the author beyond bug fixes (which if you look at the number of open source packages out there, is definitely not a unique condition).
It's an Open Source package
If it's covered by one of the standard Open licenses (the site was
I'm not saying I like the methodology, but hey, if everyone dislikes it who is using it, it won't be hard to start a new support forum or develop something else to replace it.
-that's- Open Source spirit (to me).
Letter of the law... agreement...etc... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have to definitely agree with the charging of the fee for support.
That company has made the source freely available to those who would use it. They work on it and improve it, fixing bugs as necessary. But the support itself costs money. If they were just another open source coder, then I'm sure they'd more than happily help you for free and maybe a thanks. But they are a company and they are charging support fees.
This is definitely within their right to do so in both the spirit and letter of open source. Though whether or not it agrees with different peoples' versions and understandings of open source is another matter.
As for documentation, what kind of documentation is being referred to? A help file? A Howto? Or a custom tailored document to help the user?
As for the having people basically sign a NDA to not disclose how they were shown to perform the install, that is something which is beyond the scope of "open source".
The reasoning is that open source covers the accessibility of the source code by the masses in a way which the masses can understand. If the code is beyond the means of the masses to understand, assuming it has not been obfuscated, then they require support to assist them with getting the code/app to work with their system. This help is billable and could very well be restricted information. Not from a security standpoint, but from a commodity standpoint. Ie, it is the model upon which their business is based.
One can think of it as buying software which comes with basic instructions which works for some, but doesn't for others. You can always pay more to obtain support and/or documents to better assist you, but you are not allowed to copy that document since it is copyrighted and is essentially the incentive for people to purchase support.
So I would agree with your assessment with the contractor example.
Some might point out that RedHat/etc are charging for support as well in a similar manner. Though I do not know if they are having people NDA'd.
Take with big whopping grains of salt for IANAL.
It's NOT 'to share information' (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny - I always thought the whole idea was to share source code.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummmm, excuse me, but if you're a contractor, and I hire you to write something, that's a work for hire. Unless we both agree that I cannot disseminate the stuff that I paid for, it's *mine*.
Yes, you put that bit in your contract, and that's ok. It means that we both agreed to it. However, *I* would never hire *you*, with that in the contract. I wish you well - and when I see you on the corner, holding a piece of cardboard looking for spare change, I'll just smile and walk on. If *I* hire somebody to do something for me, I sure as heck will own it afterwards, and I'll be able to do with it what I want.
As for the "free software, paid documentation", I'd suggest actually *reading* the source code, and writing your own documentation for it. Then you can freely disseminate *that*, and laugh at trhe silly people who are trying to shake users down for the documentation. But then, that's just me, being obnoxious
Excellent use of time... (Score:3, Interesting)
You must place absolutely no value on your own time.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
No, that is 100% wrong. Copyright in a work done by an independent contractor is by default owned by the contractor. The contract may assign copyright ownership if the agreement is explicit, but even then it is not usually a "work for hire", but rather a transfer of copyright ownership. A contractor's work can only be a work for hire by agreement in 9 specifically enumerated cases that do not include software.
There was a Supreme Court case in the 1980's on the copyright differentiation between the independent contractor vs. work for hire.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would state that more assertively. It's exactly what should be done, and the folks operating the alternate support site should be the ones to get the $50.
Bruce
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't agree with their license terms for the documentation, then suggest an alternative method for the license that still allows them to keep a revenue stream. Don't just advocate the disruption by someone that most probably has nothing to do with development and makes no contribution to the maintenence of the source. That sounds completely hypocritical and goes against the most suggested opensource business model I have heard of over the last 8 years ( give away the source and make money on the support).
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hi. I'm an artist. I want to use Gimp. I can't read its source code. Your attitude sucks.
It's one thing to sell information on technique, it's another to render it unusable until the documentation is purchased. It's counter-productive if the people who use it can't or won't improve it if they lose interest.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything. Is the documentation so complete that it could not use a few words from you? Document how to shade, how to install, how to load and save files. Anything at all.
"I'm all for people sharing their ideas on techniques, but basic functionality of a product MUST be documented. "
No it MUST not. What is this some law of physics? It will get documented when people get off their asses and contribute and not one minute before that. Go ahead, learn something the hard way, experiment, cry, curse, spit and when you figure it out DOCUMENT and SHARE.
"it doesn't matter if the price tag is 'free' or not."
What nonsense of course it matters. If it did not matter you would have paid $700.00 for photoshop and would not be bitching about the crappy documentation.
"How can you possibly expect free software to succeed if people can't use it?"
People can use it. You can't but other people can and do.
"That problem alone could kill open source."
What nonsense. Nothing will will open source. As long as there is one programmer writing code there is open source. Do you see the usage of open source products declining from year to year? Is the linux market getting smaller, are less people using gimp every day? Give me a break and think about what you are saying before you speak.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Funny)
I'd respond to that but I'm not obligated to. You can have an answer if you pay me $100. What I've said so far is just a teaser.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. Give me all your art for free. You must also provide step-by-step instructions on how you created the art. You must also provide information on what the art did for you and what the art should do for me. If you ever have a show in an art gallery, I should be able to video tape it and give away the videos, even if you charged for admission. Anything that you I can conceive of that you can produce, you MUST provide for free.
THAT attitude sucks. It's tantamount to slavery - that's kind of a loaded word in the USA, but I don't know what else to call it when you want to mandate what someone produces and you don't want to pay them.
If you can't read source code, I'll bet you can pay someone else to read it for you. Or perhaps they'd take some custom art in exchange. That's the cool thing about a market economy.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's already what I do. I create art for people to view free, and then I critique their work so that they can improve their skills. If somebody asks me how I did something, I tell them, even provide a tut as necessary.
But if I were to produce artwork for this community and then be close lipped about how I went about making it, I'd be a real ass. I wouldn't be providing a service to anybody. "Here's something neat, but you can't get any use of it. Sorry. I'll tell you which codec you need to watch that
Sorry, but if you're going to contribute to a community, you have certain obligations to fill. It's one thing to sell information on techinque, it's another to charge for basic use of the product. That is not ethical and it's counter productive to the community. If everybody makes an obscure interface for their app just so they can make a few bucks on a manual, then who's going to adopt it? What'll happen is you'll reach a point where paying for the documentation isn't the issue, but rather how useful is it if nobody can make sense of it?
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. You don't. It's FREE software. "Free" means that it doesn't take rights away from the user, and it doesn't impose additional rights on the developer. What else would you think "free" meant?
If everybody makes an obscure interface for their app just so they can make a few bucks on a manual, then who's going to adopt it?
THEN USE SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!!!
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like the reasonably priced commercial program that is documented properly? Okay.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Go to CGTalk.com. People do that today. They create artwork, then they share their technique with other people so they can learn. It would harm the community if everybody was to say "I'll tell you how I did it, but first go to paypal.com..." It would probably stall to the point that the community dies out.
Free Software is in a similar position. You all want the government to replace proprietary software with the Open Source stuff, but if lack of documentation gets in the way then you're leaving a door open for somebody like Microsoft to come in and do it right.
I don't think this is a matter of obligations like that other guy does, but there is a matter of maintaining intergity. If Open Source is an unprofitable model, then that will forever be a sticky note in the goal of replacing proprietary software.
If that's not your goal, then that's fine. But if you're going to release undocumented software, don't expect a flood of people to come in and start using it. Do expect somebody else to come along and do it better.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about best practices or business plans or anything like that...it's a guy who got software for no cost whining because the vendor has copyrighted the documentation and charges for support.
P.S. My answer then will be the same as it is now..."If you don't know how to use your FREE software, pay someone who can teach you. Don't whine."
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
considering the only way for them to make money is to charge for support, this makes sense to me
Even so, a lot of open-source stuff has *really* sucky documentation.
Case in point: cdrdao. Burning an audio CD over the holidays became a horrible and frustrating exercise. Fired up KonCD. Wouldn't do an audio CD because I didn't have cdrdao. Downloaded and installed cdrdao, then tried again: "Error: could not map /dev/scd0 to an SG device."
To this day, that error message remains a mystery, and the cdrdao website [sourceforge.net] provides a reference section somewhat less useful than trying to run KDE on a Pentium II. cdrecord finds the CD-RW drive and burns to it happily, there are no problems with the hardware configuration. Couldn't find any explanations of the possible causes of that problem on an otherwise happy system.
Installed arson. Well, arson didn't work at all, because it was passing "--device" to cdrdao, instead of the correct "--device 0,0,0".
Finally, late at night on the 24th and planning on slapping a couple of custom CDs of old family memories under the Christmas tree, I burned the CD manually using cdrdao and a toc file which I wrote myself. It's all well and good that I can do that, but most users would never be able to, nor should it be expected.
Moral of the story: The only thing which sucks more than the documentation is the graphical front-ends.
Hence my continued conjecture that Linux isn't ready for the desktop [glowingplate.com].
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Case in point: cdrdao. Burning an audio CD over the holidays became a horrible and frustrating exercise. Fired up KonCD. Wouldn't do an audio CD because I didn't have cdrdao. Downloaded and installed cdrdao, then tried again: "Error: could not map
You're not a coder right? (Wild guess.) Then join the project, volunteer to work on the docs, since you have freshly in your mind a clear picture of exactly what's wrong with them and how they should be fixed. Or, if you simply can't figure it out, you can ask on the development list and add the answers to the new docs you're writing.
Too many people get the idea that open source is written by a bunch of fairy godmothers who just like giving things away. Wrong. Open source programmers do it for their own benefit, satisfaction or whatever, or they do it for money. Instead of whining, try offering some of the latter, there are plenty of good people who would be willing to give you excellent value for it.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not a coder right? (Wild guess.)
Well, I can make Hello World in about 20 languages, ranging from TI BASIC to TMS9900 and 680x0 assembly. But no, my coding style is so much brute force and ignorance that Microsoft keeps on trying to hire me to work on the Outlook Security Team. (Okay, just kidding... I think.)
Then join the project, volunteer to work on the docs, since you have freshly in your mind a clear picture of exactly what's wrong with them and how they should be fixed. Or, if you simply can't figure it out, you can ask on the development list and add the answers to the new docs you're writing.I agree. My problem is that I don't know enough about any one project to be able to contribute meaningful docs, though as my Slashdot activity will attest, I do love writing, and I like to think that I'm good at it.
I've been paid good money to write highly technical radar video system manuals, but since I also designed the system, it was fairly easy to write!
So the problem becomes the typical chicken-or-egg circle. Where to begin? Know the source code of something inside and out so that you can detail all its features and potential failures? Or post every ten minutes to a mailing list, asking for info? I've tried the latter, and was met with resistance. And without knowing the source code, it's pretty hard to detail something thoroughly. It's not like there's a centralized overseeing body which dictates what every little tool should do, designs standard interfaces, etc. While it's a blessing to anyone who is interested enough in learning about the system enough to use it effectively, it's also a curse to a writer or, more critically, a desktop user.
I have also to point out that while I love computers and operating systems fascinate me, my desktop machine is a tool. My spare machines and backup servers are toys. The tool has to work, the experimentation can occur on the toys. I don't think that need is too different from most other people who are trying to use Linux as a desktop but who aren't developers.
Too many people get the idea that open source is written by a bunch of fairy godmothers who just like giving things away. Wrong. Open source programmers do it for their own benefit, satisfaction or whatever, or they do it for money. Instead of whining, try offering some of the latter, there are plenty of good people who would be willing to give you excellent value for it.At this point, I've come to the conclusion that the best thing I can offer is constructive criticism. I love Linux; its capabilities as a server or text-only system are paralleled only by the more conservative Free BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD). I see KDE as the most viable bridge to bring Windows users to Linux.
The core operating system is fantastic. The networking support, loadable kernel modules, filesystems - all these most difficult aspects are perfect. But it's like we need a marketing department in the open-source movement to actually take it into the field and get user feedback on this, that, or the other thing.
Why a marketing department? We're not trying to sell this for money. We're trying to sell this for our freedom. And a marketing department will give feedback to UI designers, apps programmers, etc. with what things need work for the basic out-of-the-box Joe-Dumbass user experience. We *need* that to be good to move him from Windows. Based on the hundreds of e-mails I've received about www.glowingplate.com/dissent [glowingplate.com], many Linux users and developers agree with me.
The role I've had in the back of my mind is User Experience Critique. (Those who can, do. Those who can't, critique.)
If my rants inspire a couple of far more capable programmers than I to sit down and really make something work elegantly, then that's another improvement to the user experience. That's another nail in the Windows coffin.
The other thing I do like to do is help out newbies where I can - "How do I get my network running?", "I give up, I can't see my new Linux server in Windows Network Neighborhood!". And in that role, I've personally helped hundreds.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
That's fine, except there's no wysiwyg xml editor out there, so all three of us would have had to learn xml, and then document.
I haven't tried this, but Lyx, which is more-or-less wysiwyg, may be able to handle Docbook XML. In your case you don't need to see the document exactly as it will appear, you just need to be able to edit and tag text, see it broken up into paragraphs with headings in reasonable fonts, and not have to worry about the underlying formatting codes, so Lyx would be just about right.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone PLEASE note this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
If we all spent a little more time helping each other out - JUST LIKE THIS - and a little less time snickering and saying "Can't get it to work? I could. You must be a dumbass", the community would be a LOT healthier.
I don't know how many Linux IRC channels I've been in that practically have a 'You must be this ->XXXXX- arrogant to get in' bar on the front door.
To both of you: Thanks for providing a wonderful example of EXACTLY what this community is supposed to be about.
WebGUI.nl provides open support for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's how to install WebGUI on RedHat 8.0 (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks but I'll just wait for MicroSoft to release a patch. A quick reboot and we'll be on our way.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with them charging for support as such but I think they're going a little too far. It seems to me that if they want $$$ for support, it would be in their best interest to have their software installed on as many systems as possible. Charging for simple installation support is a good way to keep that from happening. It sounds like they're shooting themselves in the feet with their policy.
Most vendors will at least give simple installation assistance or allow it to be given by someone else. I'd be happy with seeing a list of "here's how to install it on _______" instructions and having to pay for anything more involved than that.
The difference is the license. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than going with the standard copyright protection (you can't distribute the docs yourself), they've gone with a much more restrictive NDA-like approach of "you can't talk about the things in the document"
In almost every other case involving this kind of agreement, I've felt that this has a chilling effect on the community, and is nearly unenforceable. How much did I know before I bought the manual? How far I can I go telling my current employer (esp. if I'm contractor) about the configuration?
This grey area tends to set up an area for "selective enforcement", also known as abuse.
I'm not saying these particular folks will do that, just that that's what these kind of agreements lead towards.
$.02
-Zipwow
You miss the point. (Score:4, Informative)
Bruce
My opinion will cost you FIVE BUCKS (Score:5, Funny)
Spoiled much? (Score:3, Interesting)
-c
Re:Spoiled much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spoiled much? (Score:2)
Of course this doesn't go for every piece of software, but still..
Re:Spoiled much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Paying for support is fine. Paying for a manual is fine (even in electronic form). But, having to sign away your rights to share your knowledge with other users is an entirely different matter.
Darn Corporations (Score:5, Funny)
Greedy bastards!
Re:Darn Corporations (Score:4, Funny)
NO IT ISN'T!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Their response is "Figure it out yourself or give us $50 for the manual. We GAVE you the damn car for FREE!"
Re:NO IT ISN'T!!! (Score:2)
Re:Darn Corporations (Score:5, Funny)
Not calling him biotch would be a good start.
O'Reilly's Missing Manuals (Score:2)
Or try to learn Checkpoint FW-1 NG with documentation they provide. You have to go to a multi-thousand dollar week long training just to get a decent, helpful manual.
Write a HOWTO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Write a HOWTO (Score:3)
Bruce
Good going.... (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, IE-specific features. Good to see that stupidity crosses all license barriers.
Of course not (Score:2)
What,s so stupid about that? It's not as if non-IE users are locked out, since they can probably use an external editor quite easily.
If IE provides a native feature that will enhance the product for those users without hurting other users, it'd be stupider not to enable it. Would you say it's stupid for someone to design a website that works either way, but only gives advanced layout features to browsers that support SVG? If there's any stupidity, it only starts when you lock people out.
Silly goose (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you're just limited from spreading information around for free that they own.
If you wrote a book, would you want people copying it and giving it away for free outside Barnes + Noble?
Re:Silly goose (Score:5, Insightful)
Open docs? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a solution for the original poster, obviously, unless they have a lot more time than I do. Still, it could save the next guy's bacon, and discourage what seems to me a rather underhanded letter-not-the-spirit implementation.
I love doing documentation. Too bad I can't program my way out of a batch file.
Re:Open docs? (Score:2)
Sure. And at that point, you probably have a better manual than the one that the company produces. And you can share the information. If I were a user, I'd buy that manual instead of the company's crappy proprietary support membership.
If I were these guys, I'd remove the non-disclosure clause, pronto.
Open Docs can be made (Score:5, Informative)
Where's the motivation for Open Source? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hate to state the obvious, but if you want to make the opensource community attractive... there needs to be money involved somehow.
RedHat charges for support, some charge for documentation. Aside from the hobbiests out there, you expect large companies to throw away time and money into opensource, and getting NOTHING in return by making everything 100% free?
Did you really expect a free lunch? You know the saying I hope
--Zuchini
Re:Where's the motivation for Open Source? (Score:2)
What kind a crap is that? Why does every comany need some motivation for doing open source? It sounds to me like this company would have been better off being closed source. Shit, that's like giving away the car and selling the keys for 20 grand. The guy just wanted some documentation, sounds resonable to me. And worst of all he's not allowed to share this documentation? That's freakin nuts! Is the document copyrighted? To me this goes against the idea of what "Open Source" means. It means free information.
Expect to see more of this (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad bad bad (Score:4, Interesting)
This however is a whole other issue. What they have in their license agreement is "You shall not to share the information contained herein with any other party."
Sounds to me that if they help you resolve a technical issue in the forums then you can not share that resolution with any other person. Not on IRC, not with a person in the cube next to you, not in USENET...nowhere!
It bites, but big deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since it is open source, one could argue that all the documentation you could possibly need is already available to you.. just read the source.
Is it a little underhanded, yes. But there's nothing terribly unethical about it.
Depending on the license of the software (site is already too hosed for me to find it myself), there's nothing stopping you from forking your own branch of the source, documenting that, and continue on your merry way.
Re:It bites, but big deal. (Score:2)
Except that you are not prohibited from telling others what you read in the manual. At least the way I understand it.
Re:It bites, but big deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, they have a reasonable expectation to try to make a profit. Nobody gets paid just because they invented something.
I know its a nitpic, but that belief is why corporations believe they can sue you, if you come up with a different way to do the same thing, and people by your product instad of theirs.
JBoss as well. (Score:3, Informative)
Opps the ./ effect strikes again... (Score:2)
I wonder if pointing the
(A
BWP
They don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoting Sarah from the list:
Of course, selling the manual is a completely different matter. What they're doing isn't selling the manual; they're selling the manual and then telling you that you can't share the information.
These guys are shooting themselves in the foot. The main strength of open-source software is that open source empowers the user community. By segmenting the user community into those who pay vs. those who don't, one hobbles a large segment of the user community. It doesn't help, either, that someone publicized their behavior on Slashdot.
I certainly hope they "get it," sharpish.
Re:They don't get it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They don't get it. (Score:2)
:P
Ten ways to make money from free software (Score:5, Informative)
Well, since you asked:
umm... k? (Score:2)
Here's what I really don't get. If it's OSS, why not start digging into the code and start finding answers for yourself? Start a forum, find some other hackers who want to help out, and tear apart the source to find answers/solutions. If it's truly OSS, there's nothing saying you can't start writing your own docs.
What? That's too much trouble? pay the $50 or use something else then.
Re:umm... k? (Score:2)
the open source model is about sharing code and information.
If someone wants to start a company to support OSS, then fine, but hat is not what OSS is about.
There agreement prohibits you from sharing information. what is worse then that is someone is going to do there own documentation, give it away, then when this company fails they will say the OSS is no good. in reality, it is there business model that is no good.
How is this new? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perl works on a similar model. Larry Wall gets paid by O'Reilly & Assoc. to maintain perl. He adds new features, releases the code for free, and everyone's happy. The only stipulation is that O'Reilly gets first crack at the new documentation for their Perl books. I own several O'Reilly books and they're worth their weight in gold. I'm also happy to know that by purchasing these books, I'm supporting OSS coders.
Sounds like a crude NDA (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly you're not allowed to make photocopies of O'Reilly books and hand those out to others, but you aren't prohibited from sharing the information within. The expression is protected, the information is not. If I ask you a perl question, you're allowed to look up the answer in your O'Reilly book and answer me. If you ask me the plot of a movie I've seen, I'm allowed to tell you even if you haven't paid to see the movie.
In this case, the
sounds pretty far out, almost NDA-like.An NDA for information about an "open source" project, is something I haven't heard of before.
Ask Slashdot has become a bitch forum (Score:5, Insightful)
This really is a shame, because the idea of Ask Slashdot is very valuable. Editors simply should not let articles that are not *questions* through. Articles that contain one long string of complaints about someone followed by a random "question" tacked on the end to make it fit the format do not count.
Sorry you didn't word it in the form of a question (Score:3, Funny)
Proper format would be:
Ask Slashdot: Have you noticed that all Ask Slashdot articles lately have only been bitchy whines about the crappy content on this site and how everyone that reads /. these days is just a tourist? Am I the only person who has noticed it and how do you think we can reverse this growing trend in the community?
Isn't that what Open Source is all about? (Score:2)
In fact, that's the biggest problem with Open Source. This concept that people are owed something.
Sorry. This is my billable time, and if I support your family, then I don't support mine. And that's a problem.You can have the source as freely as I can, but you can't have my time. Sorry. Back to our example, why should they work through the issue with you for free so that you can "sell" it to others? If you want to provide support for WebGUI, then you should start from scratch, just like they did.
-BrentOh please (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, if open source is going to thrive (not merely survive) then corporations will have to take it up and that will require making money off of it somehow. If the only way this company sees to make money off this product is by selling the documentation, then they need to make sure they don't just sell one copy. If you have a problem with this, then to me that is an indictment of the feasibility of the open source model...not an indictment of the company that just wants to make a profit (or at least break even).
Free Software needs Free Documentation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free Software needs Free Documentation (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the next book he releases will be available as a free download, then. Or perhaps not.
It's painfully obvious that "free" and "open" are terms better applied to other people, especially when you're trying to pay the bills.
Or you happen to be comfortably funded by MIT.
Write your own docs! (Score:3, Interesting)
The beauty of open source is, you can't get away with keeping secrets for very long.
Help! The Big Mean Company Is Abusing Me (Score:4, Funny)
Oh wait...I never did spend any money with them.
The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem with open source as I see it is an entitlement mentality that just because someone wrote something cool, I should be able to use it for free. Being a developer that owns my own company, I have found this amazing realization that I need food. It's really a good thing. And to get food, I need money. Therefore I exercise my rights under the laws of this country to charge people to use my hard work to make their lives easier, and send me money so I can eat dinner. It's really quite a convinent arragement that has worked for quite a while.
I find that these guys have struck on something ingeneous, and have actually been reading the reports on the practical problems of Open Source software in the marketplace. The biggest problem is support. You need to have a team of experts on staff to deal with it, because M$ won't come out and fix it for you. This is really expensive from a resource point of view, because you then have to cover the HR costs of these people even when they're sitting idle, because you will need them in a pinch. Dumb arrangement. Therefore charging for support is absolutely ingeneous, and is a great model, I think. INCLUDING the documentation. We happen to give away ours for free, and charge for licensing in commercial products. We are looking at a QT type dual-license model so that we can stay in buisness. For all their detractors, I want everyone to notice that they are still in buisness. And important point since if you're laying cable with a bunch of Mexicans, you find yourself too tired to program.
Software is inherently expensive to produce. Open source has been subsidised through tax dollars via the university system (student loans, grants, etc). Before you bitch about people having to pay for software, why don't you think about the fact that people who don't have crap to do with Linux, etc, had to pay for it's construction...
As we all know... (Score:3, Funny)
Even now they're slapping their forheads saying, "Well duh, of course we should be giving this information away. Boy are we way stupid." while slashdotters smile smugly.
-Adam
"You want me to describe it to you... or shall I get you a box?"
Come on (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everything can be free... if you think it can, then write it all yourself. And, no, writing a text editor in PHP/MySQL (apparently the preferred combination for *any* programming project on Slashdot) will not work. (Before you flame, I am certain that such a beast exists, although it does seem a bit ridiculous to me). Do you realize that corporations are doing you a *favor* when they release products under an OSS model? Do you realize the huge amounts of money it takes for a commercial entity to create quality software? Do you realize what a fight it is to get something open sourced in a corporation?
Please don't take all of this for granted. Corporations are there to make money (hell, *people* are here to make money) and they have a right to do so.
Open source != open everything (Score:4, Insightful)
As I understand the article the complaint. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I agree.
This is like O'Reilly saying, " You can't divulge any of the information in this book."
I'm sorry, but as my granny used to say, " Fuck that shit!"
Give a man a fish and you feed him for day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Teach him to fish but make him sign an NDA first and, well, you're a shit head.
As it happens I've taught people to fish, for money. I assume some of those people have taught other people to fish, perhaps for money. Well, I *got* my money for what *I did.* They are getting money for what *they* did. The idea that I could forbid them from doing this is ludicrous.
What if a university did this? "Yeah, we'll teach you Java, but don't you dare think that means you can make money by teaching it yourself afterwards."
KFG
spade (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it's not support they should be selling, but convenience. Because what is support? The manuals. Access to people who know how to use the product, etc. But if "information is free" then the manuals should be freely copyable and distributable. And you can always go to usenet for access to people who know the product. But paid-for support doesn't get you access to unique information (an oxymoron), it gets you more convenient, quicker, access to the expertise. So in effect, you're paying for convenience. Just like people pay for the convenience (or status?) of having 20 ounces of water in a plastic bottle (rather than having to walk to the nearest drinking fountain for free).
This company needs to realize that they're not selling information. They're selling convenience. If they want to go the "selling information" route, they may as well become closed-source and proprietary.
Use of Yahoo Groups by open source projects bad (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the US, You Can't Sign Away Your Basic Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Blender did that... (Score:3, Interesting)
You could download a binary copy of Blender for free, but if you wanted their manual it was $57 US. I bought the manual (VERY beautifully done, but smelled funny), not because I needed it, but more to support them. Apparently enough downloaders didn't buy the manual. Now, however, Blender is OpenSource. I haven't checked to see what kind of documentation the OpenSource version of Blender supplies.
This is Bad, but ... (Score:3)
Use the source, Luke (Score:3, Interesting)
So they want to charge you for support? They can do it. They already gave you the source which is the important part.
You want premium support and a nicely printed manual? Pay for it. You don't want to pay? Read the source and figure out how it works. It really is that simple and you already do that for a lot of other open source projects, like I said before.
Fork It (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see a problem with this (Score:3, Interesting)
"Open Source, Closed Documentation?" (Score:3, Informative)
It has been widely discussed, for years, that paying for support is completely in tune with the stated and unstated philosophy of the GNU Public License.
End of discussion.
t_t_b
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
A loophole in GNU GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Its clear that there are a few holes in the GPL and I think it might be time to make changes. The GPL was intended so that developed software could be used by a wide group of people and compaines. Recent laws (such as DMCA) have restriced some of the rights that were implied when the current version of the software was written. One of thouse is the right to reverse engineer the code which accroding to my IP lawyers, is now illegal even if you have source code unless you get premission. Another hole is the NDA type agreements and those are related to some of the hiding behind trade secret laws. The GPL needs to address all of these and it needs to soon before some developer gets nailed. For example if I develop something for KDE and I steal the idea out of Gnome, its quite possible for the author of that part to sue (and win) under current US tradesecret or DMCA law even though Gnome is GPLed and its license was written with the intent of having its bits reused elsewhere.
Let's say you've just bought a device. Say a NBX100 from 3com. Now how do you know if its running GNU software or not? If they hide the copyright message, you won't know will you? At least they left in one small text message that is very gnu tar specifc. A grep GNU on their exe image shows a positive match as does a grep on "You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License". So far attempts to get the source have not been productive but I did go to great lenghts to get explicit permission to reverse engineer the code from the persons whos name is on the copyright because any attempt to look at the binary code could be a DMCA violation under current law because the GPL doesn't grant that permission.
The GPL needs a anti-NDA and a reverse engeering clause added to it at once.
So What? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am educated (Score:3, Funny)
Oh. So that's why Debian is supposed to be so much cooler than Red Hat.
I'm off to Debian's site to install it for the first time...
peer review (Score:3, Insightful)
Learning how to use that source is what they are charging for. Since it {the documentation} is distributed as a separate item, it can have whatever license/restriction that they want for it since they wrote it. SInce it is clearly stated, I have no real problem with that.
Re:I do not see the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
"They do however refuse to give you free support, unless you cough up some money - which makes perfectly sense to me."
The problem, as others have pointed out is NOT that they sell the manuals. It is that they forbid you to pass on information that you obtained from the manuals.
RMS started the GNU project because NDAs on software made it impossible to "help one's neighbour." NDAs on documentation, Gawd help us, are no different, so this is certainly contrary to the spirit of free software.
Once again, not because of sold documentation, but because of the NDA attached to it.
-Gareth