
Ask HN: Anyone else regret making free software? - paulryanrogers
Recently I&#x27;ve published a few modest plug-in&#x27;s to popular software as commercial products, and a part of me wants to give such minor work away. Yet my past experiences producing freeware and the macro effects on labor make me reluctant. After all, I do value my time and producing even &#x27;simple&#x27; functionality can consume a lot of it.<p>Granted, my participation in freeware was a niche game-mod from years ago; circa ~2001. So donation wasn&#x27;t as common as it appears today. Also, while I understand &#x27;free&#x27; as a marketing technique, it seems to be conditioning potential buyers to expect pricing below costs. This can&#x27;t be good for those trying to make it by selling their work.<p>On the other hand I&#x27;ve certainly benefited from free and open software produced by others. There have even been a few occasions where I&#x27;ve donated small amounts. Though, looking at widely used projects like DosBox my guess is contributors (or those of similar projects) would have been compensated a lot more if they were not free. Or at least gotten more funding considering how Steam and GOG have benefited.<p>Am I alone in feeling some regret making freeware? Anyone else feel similarly conflicted in charging for their work?
======
pdow
The single biggest mistake I made when I was an independent software developer
was making my flagship product available for free.

Of course when I first released the application I had no idea it would become
a significant part of many people's lives and would come to occupy all of
mine. I also had a job at the time, and like you I felt conflicted about
charging for my work.

The application was Journler, an information management application for the
Mac desktop circa 2006-2010, and I eked out a living on a "donationware" model
for some time.

Eventually the scope of the project became so large that I needed extra help,
but I didn't have the income to hire help. I needed to start charging to be
able to hire help, but in order to release a new version of the software with
a paid model while continuing to manage customer support, I needed to hire
help. I fell into a vicious circle, and the project collapsed. I open sourced
it, apologized to the user community, and moved on to contract work.

You cannot anticipate what will happen with the software projects you release
into the wild. But as developers often underestimate how long it takes to
complete a project, I'd speculate we also underestimate how much of ourselves
we'll have to commit to a project that becomes even modestly successful.

Charge from the beginning and put yourself into a position where you can hire
help if it should come to that.

~~~
belorn
In 2015 I would suggest open up a patreon page (or similar service) and define
how much money is required for continued work. After that its the users choice
to pay the salary or not, and as a developer you can see if there was enough
interest in the product to support its development.

Donationware or paid version schemes can also work in some cases, but in my
view there is a bit of an mental distance between a person paying and the
product being supported for further development. It only seems to work in the
exceptional massive projects and then a large portion of donations often seems
to be from other companies rather than private citizens.

------
rebootthesystem
The only free (gratis) software I regret releasing is for iOS. A massive
numbers of developers have done the same, adding huge value to the iOS
platform. Apple socks away billions while developers get nothing or very
little. Apple set up their ecosystem as a slippery slope that shoved everyone
into the mud very quickly. That's one of the big reasons for which we have
zero interest in the watch. Apple needs a ton of free apps to give it value.

------
viraptor
> Though, looking at widely used projects like DosBox my guess is contributors
> (or those of similar projects) would have been compensated a lot more if
> they were not free. Or at least gotten more funding considering how Steam
> and GOG have benefited.

I think you may have it a bit backwards. Old applications are easy to run and
popular, because DosBox exists. If it was a paid app, maybe GOG wouldn't be
known at all. Or maybe the prices would be much higher than they are now.

If you regret releasing free software, that's your right of course. But unless
you released something very similar in the same environment and got paid real
money for it (not donated - charged and received), I don't think you can make
a valid prediction of what would happen in a non-free scenario.

~~~
paulryanrogers
> Old applications are easy to run and popular, because DosBox exists.

Actually I think nostalgia makes old stuff popular even when it is challenging
to do. I've met people into 1840's-style iron working despite the challenge;
and certainly not because it's the most optimal way to produce the desired
product.

> If it was a paid app, maybe GOG wouldn't be known at all. Or maybe the
> prices would be much higher than they are now.

Perhaps GOG would not exist, but Nintendo has been selling repackaged editions
of their old software for a long time now. And maybe GOG and Steam prices
should be slightly higher to compensate those doing the ports. If so then some
ports may have been better quality.

~~~
viraptor
I don't understand how the first part is connected to the free/regret post,
sorry.

Nintendo, sure, releases them for the platform they control completely.
Outside of that platform, there's a lot of free emulators (not a single one
paid on [http://emulator-zone.com/doc.php/nes/](http://emulator-
zone.com/doc.php/nes/))

------
abstractspoon
I have been writing ToDoList
([http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5371/ToDoList-An-
effecti...](http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5371/ToDoList-An-effective-
and-flexible-way-to-keep-on)) as freeware for nearly 12 years and never
regretted a minute. I have a day job and write ToDoList purely for fun/joy. A
Thriving community has grown up around it, it has provoked a number of people
to develop related tools and has kept the passion alive when my day job (also
programming) sometimes sucked.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Interesting perspective, thanks for taking the time to share. I'd imagine that
most people who do open source are in a similar situation. That is, expenses
already paid. Yet such efforts also appear to undermine the value of your
profession as a whole.

Consider the poor-yet-educated developer (maybe strait out of college or
living in the 3rd world) with a great idea for a to-do application like yours.
He pours precious time and effort into his work. Then after establishing his
product someone with time to spare starts giving away a free alternative. The
poor developer cannot compete as more and more of his consumers, and potential
customers, opt for the free project.

Quality and execution are the arguments I often read in response to such an
argument. Yet the sacrifice of the poor developer just to get basic
functionality are greater than those of us who already have a day job. While I
love to share, create, and avoid reinventing the wheel; I'd also like others
to enjoy at least some of the career and benefits I've been blessed with.

~~~
abstractspoon
But if no one does create that app then my app never gets written... So it's
not really a working argument.

And if I charge for it and no one buys it, what then, should I give up or make
it open-source?

What if that 'person' can use my software for free and in doing so save some
money so that they can write the software they want to?

~~~
paulryanrogers
> But if no one does create that app then my app never gets written

You could write it and release it at a price equivalent to your time and
effort. You could even include the source for personal modification and offer
free updates to anyone who contributes back to the project. Or write it
yourself and keep it private.

> And if I charge for it and no one buys it, what then, should I give up or
> make it open-source?

Pricing is an art, so I imagine some experimentation is in order. I've begun
doing so myself. Making it open source, as in no cost to redistribute, would
still devalue programming as a paid profession; even if it's hard to see at
the micro level.

> What if that 'person' can use my software for free and in doing so save some
> money so that they can write the software they want to?

Good counter-point. Some producers do benefit indirectly as they are also
consumers of tools. Yet if they ultimately find it harder to get paying work--
because the market as a whole expects software below cost--then the net effect
looks negative to me.

------
omnivore
Add-ons, mods and other freebies are often about solving a problem, learning
something new or simply contributing to the community. I doubt you're alone in
feeling regret about giving a thing away that you later see people pay for out
of someone else, but it doesn't mean the work went to waste or that you
somehow squandered the one chance you to contribute materially.

~~~
paulryanrogers
> ...it doesn't mean the work went to waste or that you somehow squandered the
> one chance you [had] to contribute materially.

While I did learn a lot through the process of contributing to free software,
it's also time I could have spent making software that paid for itself. Still,
it is good to be reminded of the positives. Thanks.

------
MrTonyD
I've been working with open source software since before the term existed (it
used to be called "free" before licensing was understood.) At this point, I
think it is mostly a bad idea. First, the big users of most open source
software are big Fortune 500 companies run by a bunch of billionaires - so why
should they get software free? Second, I think that everyone should get at
least a living wage for any work they do - so working for free really reflects
an economic system that was set up to create winners and losers.

So now I would prefer to see more managed economies - less tolerance for the
billionares, and less tolerance for a system where people must work for free
to get the chance to get a good job.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
_it used to be called "free" before licensing was understood_

This statement along with saying free software means "working for free" and
that Fortune 500 companies being large adopters of free software isn't
preferable, makes me strongly doubt you ever understood it in the first place.

------
informatimago
You have a defective language. Try French, with logiciel libre et logiciel
gratuit.

Free software (logiciel libre) is not software given for free, for USD0.00.

Free software (logiciel libre) is software that gives freedoms to the user:

\- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

\- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your
computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition
for this.

\- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom
2).

\- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to
benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.

If creating software costs you dearly, then of course, you shall invoice your
users for selling your software to them. Bug give them those freedoms! Sell
free software. Don't give enslaving software for free (gratuitement).

As a user, I would not use freeware (logiciel gratuit). Freeware (logiciel
gratuit) is enslaving; usually the source is even not available, so I cannot
verify that freeware software (logiciel gratuit) doesn't do something evil in
my back.

Notice that if you sell your logiciel libre under the GPL license, you have to
give the sources of your logiciel libre to your paying _customer_, but not to
anybody else. Of course, then your customer has the 4 freedoms described
above, and he could further sell or give your software, along with the sources
to somebody else. But this is work and it would involve charges, so he may
choose not to do so.

~~~
paulryanrogers
> Of course, then your customer has the 4 freedoms described above, and he
> could further sell or give your software, along with the sources to somebody
> else. But this is work and it would involve charges, so he may choose not to
> do so.

With OpenSSL many apparently did use it and resell it without compensating
upstream. Only after HeartBleed did that situation change. For a more GPL
example I've noticed DosBox Turbo reuses both DosBox and another port's work
in their sources. My guess is unmodified reselling may be happening with
WooCommerce plug-in's at Woothemes-plugins.com and Wooextension.com.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
But let us not forget how efficiently and immediately OpenSSL was able to be
forked, precisely because it was free software.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Certainly that is a benefit for the consumer. But my regrets are because I am
a producer. When others can use one's work to resell updated copies without
compensation then I doubt one would feel motivated to keep working on it.

------
em3rgent0rdr
"free software" is not the same as "freeware", which by commonly accepted
usage is almost always reffering to proprietary software that is distributed
at no cost. The OP tends to implicitly conflate them by lumping them in
together.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Perhaps they are different for some folks. In my experience most people
consider both terms any software that is free to acquire, use, and distribute.
Regardless, if wares are acquired and used without charge then the impact on
producers and the price expectations of consumers is the same.

