I've been trying to understand the economic rationale behind the open source
philosophy, and I think I see an apparent contradiction. From what I've seen
so far it seems there are two economic motives for contributing to open
source projects. (Ignoring those who do it just for fun.)

1. For young programmers making their mark, it is an opportunity to gain
experience and prove their worth, enhancing potential for future paid
positions.
2. For companies with proprietary software that doesn't sell well as
shrink-wrap, it is an opportunity A) to reap the benefit of the unpaid labor
of those in [1], and B) to generate revenue through support services,
because they are the only real experts with a particular package.

The apparent contradiction is that if the source code is so convoluted that
you really need the services of those in [2], it amounts to "vendor lock-in"
in practical terms, which is consummate evil in the minds of the FSF, or so
they say. If nobody really needed those services there would be no economic
motive besides [A]. If there is a less cynical explanation I'd love to hear
it, so long as it is economically practical. As it is, it looks to me like a
glorified internship program. That, at least, resolves the contradiction in
my mind.
--
Phil Mattison
Ohmikron Corp.
480-722-9595 ext.1
602-820-9452 Mobile