Hacker News Reader

Comment by maerF0x0 | Hacker News Reader

Also of concern is a tragedy of commons like issue where those who contributed no funding are able to get the software for free. For example if a piece of city focused software is FOSS and then a bunch of other cities choose to consume it but not contribute to the funding or code.

View on HN

Agreed the other cities are being a jerk but not exactly a tragedy of the commons [1] as OSS is not a rival good [2]. One city using the software does not prevent others from using it.

[1] https://market.subwiki.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons [2] https://market.subwiki.org/wiki/Rival_good

I think it's closer to a fireworks show. Another set of eyes doesn't impact the purchaser's viewing.

I agree, it's not about the race to consume, but "Free Rider Problem"

  The problem in this case is how to get people to pay for the creation of the good in the first place, because people know that even if they do not pay for the creation of the good, they can still enjoy the benefits.

https://market.subwiki.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

That's possible, however the idea is that the net outcome would be positive. Say city A open sources some useful software that city B, C and D freely copy and do not contribute anything back. No harm is done to city A open sourcing the software they would have needed anyways. Then city E starts using the software and needs some additional functionality so they use the budget they would have otherwise used to re-implement their own proprietary version of the software to contribute back their enhancement to city A's project.

Sure some cities will not contribute back but in open source it is the organizations most in need and most able to contribute back who do. Why is that a problem?

I think that's a poor application of tragedy of the commons.

Also, in your example, I don't know how other cities' use would impede the funding city's use.

In theory you might get a situation where several cities try to wait each other out for similar tasks, hoping another city will buckle first and fund it.

I worked on image analysis software in a wetlab for a particular type of microscopy. They are in just this position: the lab builds and sells software. The fees are low -- on the order of $10-$15k/license. They use the proceeds entirely to fund ongoing development of the software. And the simple fact is, without these license sales, they don't have the resources to fund development. The software is open source in the sense that the licensees are given the source.

If the lab has to give the software away, all development ends, unless you have $300k/year of grants sitting around.

This is the same bullshit excuse people use to justify subscription licensing.

If they can't get the interested labs to contribute towards the development without the coercion of a commercial license then it sounds like it's either done, or the development roadmap is misaligned with the users' goals. In either case, stopping the abusive current practices would be an immediate improvement for everyone involved.

EDIT:

As many have pointed out I misused the term "Tragedy of commons" , when in fact it is "The Free Rider Problem"[1]

However the main point stands. Others will not invest in FOSS in hopes that someone else will first and they they can just consume for free.

[1]:" https://market.subwiki.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

This sounds like a synergy of the commons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com