There needs to be a sustainable free software business model that small and large companies can easily adopt.
Donations aren't enough.
Support based models like RedHat lead to bad incentives and seems to limit one to enterprise clients. Its an option however, but then you're not directly selling your software either, but rather running a side gig alongside development.
Most other models that I see working involve saas / hosting, which is a good compromise but also weird: the creator earns nothing if you benefit from the license and use it to host your own instance, which is unfortunate and yet amazing for the end users.
There is also the industry association model like Linux uses, which has merit: various stakeholders buy an interest in a project to fund open development. This isn't feasible for the average entrepreneur though, although the creator of Vue apparently has some respectable funding.
The creators of something so great for end users should be able to get rich for doing so, rather than needing to make personal financial sacrifices to dedicate their time to the work. It should be more win win.
What bad incentives do support based models lead to?
There are 3 different aspects here: 1. you're selling support 2. the customer is using the support 3. it's open source, so anybody can sell support
So in order to be profitable, you want to maximize your income (1.) and minimize your expenses (2.), that is, sell lots of support for software whose quality is good enough that the customers rarely have to actually call the support hotline.
But if the customer does call the support hotline you have to ensure that the support they get is top quality, otherwise they'll take advantage of 3. and leave for your competitor (note, "we'll support ourselves in-house based on the upstream release" is effectively another competitor here).
Another point: there are multiple levels of support, and different organizations can cooperate to provide the full package; at the lowest level you tell the end user to check if the computer is powered on; at the higher levels you root-cause and fix bugs and implement new features, which is where you can really market expertise with specific projects.
Of course you're right to point out that you're limited to enterprise clients; I haven't heard of any success with selling support to consumers.
>What bad incentives do support based models lead to?
Entirely useless projects that would not stand independent scrutiny, but are sold through several inefficient management layers by salesmen with the guarantee that "at least we support it".
Out of curiosity, how big was your organization before the support model you're describing took off? What sort of product was it? I would love to learn more about how this works in practice for companies besides red hat
BTW the foundations generally explicitly do not fund development; they're more for marketing. (I know LF employs Linus and Greg KH and such but that's like 1% of Linux development.)
If one can devise a set of tests exhibiting that a particular instance works correctly, then a subscription becomes possible, as in "the customer pays a rent, as long as the software works as specified", maybe even along with some provision for penalties.
In a way that's what xaaS offers.
However devising a way to let the customer keep his data on-premises may be a major factor, as some (many?) consider their data confidential and therefore prefer store it on their own controlled environments.
As any serving software needs an adequate underlying machine and OS, the service company needs subcontracting partners and/or ways to certify.
It seems to me that Red Hat (along with SUSE, and many other similar companies) may one day adopt this approach.
> but then you're not directly selling your software either
You can't usually sell FOSS because any of your downstream customers can undercut you. Since they may be doing less development than you (to the point of doing nothing), any business model around FOSS that relies on directly selling your software is risky. I suppose it can work, but it requires all of your downstream customers to be working in concert with you, which is very unlikely long term (and especially unlikely if you start making a lot of money).
You can try to offer SaaS services on top of your FOSS software, but that will also be undercut if you are reasonably successful.
This gives you a couple of options. First, you can try to eke a living out of selling software/SaaS but making little enough money that you don't attract attention from competition. This is not necessarily unreasonable if you are trying to make a living wage. People are unlikely to compete with you if the pool is only $100K a year.
But in reality, the only actual scarcity that you have to offer is your time. Very rarely do you see someone fork a project, do a huge amount of development work and offer up the result. People/organisations trying to cash in on your work will be trying to avoid doing development. Otherwise they will almost certainly prefer to look at your effort and rewrite it from scratch.
This means you have to charge for development work. There are only really 2 ways of doing this: find contract work for your project (up to and including sponsoring development entirely), or asking for willing support of development (aka "donations").
I think it's incorrect that donations aren't enough. It's fair enough to say that they generally haven't been enough, but I think part of the problem is the idea that a "donation" is optional. Especially for business software/services, one thing I've heard over and over again is: "We would pay for this, but there is no way to get an invoice". IMHO, this is actually the problem. It's not that there is a shortage of people willing to pay, it's more that there is a difficulty making the payment happen. Even non-corporate end users are willing to pay for software and support development (what percentage of people would hold up their hand and say they wouldn't pay for the tools they use every day). It's more that they don't pay (strangely, quite a few free software game developers have discovered that putting their game on Steam results in money appearing, simply because it is a convenient method for people to pay).
I think part of the problem with current FOSS business models is that they are predicated on the idea that people won't pay unless forced to rather than the idea that people will pay, but don't because there is too much friction in the payment area (psychological as well as actual).
Fix the payment issue and I think you will find that you have a viable business model which is robust because anyone wanting to challenge you has to produce better than you, rather than just ride your coat tails.
One small thing I would also advise: don't overlook trademarks! There is a very good reason why the GPL does not include a trademark license. Do not hand out your trademark to your downstream customers and allow them to piggyback on your success. Force them to build their own brand if they want to market software/services using your code.
This is exactly right. People can pretty easily make their own lunch, and yet every day there are millions of transactions involving people forking over, say, $8 for an overpriced and overspiced pasta dish.
Programmers need to stop looking at the most negative pathological potential that involves not getting paid and then extrapolating that it will be true for everyone in the pool of prospective customers. (That and also stop feeling burned when someone either takes a path that involves not paying or just doesn't bite at all). The sandwich shop doesn't have to capture 100% of the revenue that could be generated by the passing traffic. They just need to do well enough to keep the lights on.
And stop focusing on open source versus commercial software, or how to "run an open source project" and find funding for it. Start selling software that's incidentally open source.
In 2017, I decided that I would (a) start paying for more software, and (b) never again pay for any program that didn't come with source code. (I.e., not even necessarily free software—they just need to have published the source somewhere.) The consequence of that is that I've paid a total of $0 since then. Know how many times I've bought pizza in that time period?
That is absolutely hilarious. I did the exact same thing... I don't know... 20 years ago. Same result :-) To be fair, I have paid for some free software, but it can be a bit tricky. As soon as I can wrest my wife's credit card away from her (I don't have one myself :-( ), I intend to pay for https://sourcehut.org/ even though I don't use it at the moment. It's exactly what I want someone to build. I hope he does a good job! Not affiliated in any way, but I want it to be true that he can make a living doing that.
> This means you have to charge for development work. There are only really 2 ways of doing this
There is potentially a third way: crowdfunded bounties. There are some sites for these, but they don't seem to have attracted much activity. (I built one myself a few years ago, but dropped it when it didn't get any traction.)
I'd really love for this to be a thing.... I think the main problem I see is that the true cost of the bounty is dramatically higher than most people (even in the industry) can understand. For example, let's say I'm trying for $100k a year in sales (fairly conservative, I think). That gives me about 250 working days or a daily (sales!) rate of $400. 1 day of development is a pretty tiny feature, but would require that 20 people pledge $20 each. Personally, I'm not really comfortable paying more than about $20-$50 for a single piece of software in a year, so that means that my input is really tiny... Which it is of course. $100k in sales would require 5000 people paying $20 per year, so each person's vote is pretty small.
I think it's all about optics... 5000 people paying $20 is probably easy to manage in a "I'll do something awesome this year, trust me" model than 50-100 "Let's raise money for this tiny feature" pledge drives.
But... It would be really nice if it were a thing... Possibly there is a better way to represent it that makes it more appealing to payers.
> the true cost of the bounty is dramatically higher than most people (even in the industry) can understand.
Only in a few parts of the U.S. with sky-high cost of living and rents. Most FLOSS developers are not in such places. (OTOH, high costs are definitely the reason why there's little-to-no "pure" crowdfunding for things like AAA-class video games, or live-action feature movies. It turns out that the cost of these things is so high that, by and large, people aren't actually willing to fund them when the full cost is made transparent.)
> Plenty of companies create, use and release open source software using permissive open source licenses.
Typically, these big-corporation permissively licensed projects are loss leaders and some other part of the company is making the profit; think Android (funded by Google's ad revenue) or LLVM (funded by Apple's iOS hardware sales, and again Google's ad revenue).
If you look at companies that have successful business models where the income actually comes from the open source software itself (Red Hat/SuSE), you'll find a lot of critical copyleft GPL projects (GCC, Linux, glibc, systemd, Samba, ...).
And I think it’s disingenuous to claim gcc, Linux or glibc are somehow “from” RedHat or suse. Sure they contributions but it’s not like they’re company projects that were open sourced.
The fact that GCC/Linux/glibc/etc were pre-existing projects that multiple corporations chose to contribute to without gaining any real "ownership" or control makes them less relevant examples for you?
>> Complaining about a lack of business involvement in RMS-approved “free software” ...
> The fact that GCC/Linux/glibc/etc were pre-existing projects that multiple corporations chose to contribute to without gaining any real "ownership" or control makes them less relevant examples for you?
The comment I replied to says
> If you look at companies that have successful business models where the income actually comes from the open source software itself (Red Hat/SuSE), you'll find a lot of critical copyleft GPL projects (GCC, Linux, glibc, systemd, Samba, ...).
My point is that nobody is paying for RedHat so they can use GCC or the Linux Kernel or glibc, and none of them would "die" without RedHat.
Also, I imagine practically no one pays for RHEL just to get RHEL. They want the certiciation/support/training from RH (some of which they used to provide as a service for their free product).
RedHat is essentially selling a service (support), and to provide that RedHat has a Linux distribution they control completely.
>When the licence itself and the mantra that goes with it are both hostile to business use, it’s no surprise business doesn’t get involved.
Obviously, but that's because businesses act unethically -- ie, for private profit over public good. They absolutely should be called out for that. Or, more specifically, they should be regulated so that non-free software licenses are illegal or severely restricted.
>Or, more specifically, they should be regulated so that non-free software licenses are illegal or severely restricted.
I think it is OK to just not have copyrights (and also not have patents). And then, there is no non-free software licenses because it is not copyright, so even if they write them they do not have any legal meaning.
Stallman's idea, that practical works you can freely use/modify/distribute/etc but artistic works it is permitted to be a limited copyright (only a few years), might also work, I think (although I am not entirely sure; I think it is probably simpler to just abolish copyright entirely).
I have also seen a suggestion to tax copyright so that you have to pay a annual tax, and can copyright it for up to ten years, but anyone who pays 100 times the tax rate of copyright can force it into the public domain early. I think that can do (and if the government likes to earn money, it can help them too), but still perhaps the copyright should not be applicable for practical works, which instead are freely usable. (Some works may be hybrid, and that is more difficult. One idea is if you can separate the parts easily enough then you can copyright the artistic parts, but if you cannot then it is forced public domain; making the source code of a computer game available may be one way to do, so that you will want to release the source codes anyways in order that you may copyright the artistic non-practical-works of them.)
But whether or not is copyright, there should be a requirement of warning label on commercial products that use DRM, and there should not be laws to restrict circumventing them on your own copies of works/devices.
How would authors make money without copyright? Publishers would just print whatever they wanted and authors would be living off patreon and ad revenue like youtubers today do...
So a "Free" license that has literally no legal protection from abuse is better than the mere existence of proprietary software?
This makes zero sense. The companies that are currently publishing copyrighted proprietary software would then be free to take the GPL software, make improvements for their own purposes and distributed the compiled binaries and make profits without providing the improvements back.
As a proponent of permissive licenses I have no qualms about my software being enhanced and used by others without giving back those improvements - but the whole point of the GPL is to prevent that - so a GPL without copyright may as well be MPL or BSD or MIT.
Sorry, maybe I was being unclear, because it isn't quite what I meant. I meant that that I think having no copyright at all is better than copyright enforcing proprietary software. Yes, you still would be able to distribute compiled binaries without providing the improvements back (and I think permissive licenses (I use public domain myself, rather than copyright) are much simpler than the GPL), but someone can try to reverse it (or to do other things with it) and they can't arrest them for that (although anyone can still make complaints about what the company is doing, to give them a bad reputation; people could still complain about anything they wanted to complain about). I know what is the point of the GPL, and I like that point, but think it is complicated, and I do not like copyright.
Of course if I write a program I would like that others who make modifications (public) that they would also contribute those source codes too, but I do not like to put in legal obstructions, so you should have freedom rather than having too many laws and obstructions.
> Obviously, but that's because businesses act unethically -- ie, for private profit over public good.
I don’t find that unethical. What’s more, I do it all the time—for example, right now I’m watching Netflix instead of doing any kind of public service. I have two kidneys, but only really need one. I use my money to buy stuff for my own usage, instead of donating it all after I fulfil my basic needs.
And if I happened to run a business, I would do the very same thing. So I don’t think it’s my place to be calling people out on things that I do too. Doing things for the community should be held in a very high regard. But being legally forced to do that seems really inappropriate to me.
You're confusing the actions of yourself with the actions of multibillion-dollar institutions. Corporations are not people, they are massively powerful legal entities.
Corporations aren’t people, thus are incapable of making any decisions. People run corporations and these people make decisions. And they make them, as most of us do, with their own interest in mind first.
> that's because businesses act unethically -- ie, for private profit over public good
Are you suggesting it is morally wrong to earn a profit if it would better serve the public good? How and more importantly who defines public good? A major theme from The Wealth of Nations refutes your point by arguing that the greatest economic benefit occurs when people act in their own self-interest:
> It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
It sounds like you're arguing for a socialism model where a central authority decides how to use capital.
I lok at the meaning of that assertion on terms of game theory. Producing software is not a zero-sum game. If you model it as something like the prisoner's dilemma between the developer and the public, then proprietary software makers are the defectors: they gain a lot, and the public gains a little. Free software makers are the cooperators: they gain less, but the public gains a lot, and more is gained in total than in the first case.
The public good under that definition is rather clear: the total advantage (not necessary capital) that something provides to the entirety of society.
I can see how choosing to act in a less-good way than another obvious way can be interpreted as unethical.
>This is fucking insane. It’s a terrible suggestion and you should feel terrible for having made it.
It's actually a very good suggestion and I feel good about it. Another way of saying this is that intellectual property restrictions should be greatly relaxed. What's insane is that an overwhelming majority of time, money and energy in the tech sector goes into software that is closed source, and thus technological progress is greatly hindered because research and code is unable to be shared openly. Imagine, for example, the vast public good that would arise from Google or Microsoft opening up their entire code bases for free. Think about how much good has already arisen from their respective open source projects already, & if that was extended to all their products.
Regardless, my point is not that every business acts unethically, but rather that in any business there exists a tension between private profit and public good. This is one specific example -- it is in the interest of a private company to keep their code bases closed and proprietary, but it is in the public good for all software to be free an open.
> Imagine, for example, the vast public good that would arise from Google or Microsoft opening up their entire code bases for free.
Why stop with code? If code is always better in the open, then why not require all business communication in the open.
> in any business there exists a tension between private profit and public good
I don't think there is always a tension. If not by profit, how do you motivate people to develop new technology and fund the support system necessary for development?
I think the meaning is not that some act unethically, but that they are incentivized to act unethically, e.g. by being allowed to externalize costs and then being by making their survival dependent on how well they did it.
>> so that non-free software licenses are illegal or severely restricted.
> This is fucking insane. It’s a terrible suggestion and you should feel terrible for having made it.
This is an unacceptable comment. If you disagree with the parent, then write so in a manner that opposes and disproves the comment, not outright go for personal attacks.
I hope at some point it makes financial sense for a company independent of software to maintain stuff like the BSDs and what have you. Ie toyota doing something like Netflix. Maybe an embedded devices manufacturer...
They exist to let people watch movies/tv, and use tech to provide that service.
Compare that to say HashiCorp who release tools as MPL and then provide further features under a licence to fund the business; Or Percona who provide enhanced forks of MySQL under gpl (because that’s what upstream dictates) but then additional tools under eg BSD license, and provide consulting for either their own or other database engines to fund the business.
Heck my own business is effectively consulting, but I build tools to make my life easier and release them under permissive licenses wherever I can (If I fork an existing gpl licensed tool to improve it clearly I have to use their existing licence)
It depends what kind of experience you mean. I started working in a 'classic' (i.e. windows desktops and Novell servers in a private WAN) network/systems support+admin role in 2003, moved into web development in 2006, and then gradually got more involved in ops again until about 2013-14, when I started taking on new clients directly (only the very first job was I an employee - in every other position I was essentially a contractor - initially through agencies and then directly invoicing the company).
The income question isn't as easy to answer - my rate varied a lot from roughly what I'd been contracting at for some 'mates rates' clients, up to nearly 4x the price for others - but as is expected it wasn't consistent. It's been a couple of years of pretty steady work at a reasonable rate so I guess the "TLDR" answer is 3-4 years.
Keep in mind, apart from the first 2 or 3 jobs I had (2x government and then one at a Telco) everything else has been 'remote', and I've been geographically remote (I live in Thailand) since before I started this business. I have no doubt this has affected the number of potential clients, but it sure beats commuting into a city every day.
I hope that helps and isn't too much of a ramble. Feel free to email me if you want to discuss it further, my address is in my profile.
This is one of many cases that UBI could “solve”. If you can house and feed your family, don’t have to worry about healthcare/education costs, etc, you are freed to work on projects like that (either on your own, or associating with others) that benefit society as a whole but are not neatly solved by “the free market”.
I don't think so, most programmers can pull UBI-like amount working 1-2 months per year and spend the rest time on the project of their own, but I don't know a lot of programmers who live like that.
I would blame that on the current economy, where getting contract work is already work in itself, and the fact that insurance and other taxes need to be paid all year round. I guess that having 1-2 months clocked in per year won't instill confidence in potential customers either.
How would UBI solve the coordination, incentive and information problems that make temporary contract work difficult to arrange? It's a pain in the ass to find someone good and get them up to speed and most projects last longer than 1-2 months. UBI doesn't change those facts whatsoever.
It wouldn't solve those problems, but sidestep them completely. UBI frees you up from the overhead of getting money and leaves time to pursue the projects that the thread's ancestor mentioned, without having to worry about sustenance.
There are plenty of business models out there that maintainers can make money with, in a capitalistic society, this usually involves creating your own business or working for company that uses the software.
If no one is paying for your open source project, is it because you don't know how to build an actual product on top of it or is the market maybe telling you something?
Lots of gratis open source products are widely used. Sometimes because inventors are not salespeople. Sometimes because the target market has little money. I'm sure there are many other reasons too. The market is not identical to the civilization
Personally I don't think economic systems are necessarily better for the creation of rich people. I know it's a minority opinion, but I feel like it leads to lottery type winner-take-all situations where a few popular creators have absurd amounts of money, and the long tail don't have enough to get by. If you had commie programmers all paid a similar fair wage from the government you could generate plenty of good free software and reward effort rather than some mix of luck and skill.
The sad thing is that often, talent is wasted by people getting rich. Beeing rich is basically like a gymn member ship. Its allbout lifting, gaining (monetary) weight and not really contributing to society anymore.
My trillionair-ceps is at 2.8- where is yours now bro?
All those people started with some other skill, be it at organizing or detecting opportunitys, or even technical- and its now sits barren.
Crowdfunding does that. The product costs 0 once the funding threshold is met and the money is secured, but before that it costs >0 if you actually want the product to be developed. This aligns incentives quite well, if the model is used correctly.
All of the crowdfunding projects I've participated in delivered a product (games, books, albums, hardware) that was sold as a normal product would be upon completion with the backers getting their rewards.
Patreon is maybe more what you're describing but that's not usually product-focused and is more patronage as the name implies.
Here is a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign that resulted in open source code being added to the Linux kernel. This is from a company that usually does the same sort of work but is usually funded by other companies.
Free speech implies you can't force it to be not free as in beer. Being allowed to charge money for something doesn't prevent other people for giving it away free.
True, but there are a large number of people for whom just running "make" at the command line is too much of a hassle. This is normally the market, not other technical people.
This really doesn't work and it's a disservice to mention it. Every time someone has tried to withhold binaries other people step up within hours to provide them (whether that's a good thing or not).
> I refuse to carry a portable phone. I never have one and unless things change, I never will. I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, “Could you please make a call for me?”
I don't understand how RMS can find this behavior of his non-noteworthy. He claims to boycott things but admits to having a critical reliance on other people not boycotting. For someone deeply committed to extend ideals, the moral flexibility here is huge.
It'd be one thing if he advocate a network of swapping burner phones or something, but he's acting like an antivaxxer relying on the herd to indulge and accommodate his desire to get the benefits without paying the costs.
I recommend a recent set of episodes (0x60 - 0x63) of the Free As In Freedom podcast[0]. The show is hosted by Bradley Kuhn and Karen Sandler of Software Freedom Conservancy, both long-time free software advocates. It's a really frank and interesting discussion of their own struggles over this issue. The discussion surrounds their keynote of FOSDEM this year, the audio of which is included in the final installment.
If everyone boycotted mobile phones, they’d probably pay for a landline or have pay phones available again.
It’s only been the last ten years or so where pay phones have disappeared from public spaces. And with the increased proliferation of WiFi, making a VoIP call from a laptop or whatever will likely become more and more practical in the future.
This bothered me as well. Not carrying a mobile phone works for him, but if everyone did the same then obviously that strategy collapses. Unless he's advocating that no one carries a mobile phone, which actually seems reasonable in some respects.
> Unless he's advocating that no one carries a mobile phone
I'm pretty sure he is advocating that, "unless things change".
If even a significant minority fraction of the population stopped carrying cellphones, society and industry would have to work around that problem. After all, we all seemed to get along mostly fine before they existed.
I honestly think there's a moral argument _against_ everyone not carrying a mobile phone. How many people worldwide do you figure use their mobile phone in emergencies? How many times do you figure having a mobile phone has made the difference between receiving help when needed and people dying?
It's not to say that mobile devices don't come without their own set of challenges (surveillance capitalism, social media, the influence on how we interact with others, etc). However, Pandora's box has been opened here. Even if we assume that mobile phones only make the difference in addressing emergencies, and only do so 0.1% for 0.1% of the population, that's 7M people that are saved.
It strikes me as suprisingly disingenuous that some people are so ready to eschew technology as inherently "evil" just because there are some challenges or problems associated with it. You have to weight both sides.
> if everyone did the same [..] that strategy collapses.
I think the idea is that if everyone did the same, operators and carriers would be scrambling to recapture the market with user-friendly privacy-respecting devices and services, so everyone could have a ethical phone, including rms.
It's not necessarily an issue of morals. Take cellular tracking [1], for example: avoiding carrying a phone around with you 24/7 is the only real way to address things like carriers from selling your realtime location data. Then, simply borrowing someone else's to make a convenient call doesn't open you up to anything. And then morals do come into it because you can say "well, at least I'm trying".
And convenience and other values such technology offers is non-arguable, it's just unfortunate it's so anti- freedom and privacy. In that regard you can't blame Stallman for participating when society as a whole is pushing such complete and utter reliance on mobile devices. That's like calling someone who advocates for privacy disingenuous for using a CC over cash 100% of the time; you can't even book most hotels without a CC, (and ID, and other identifiable information tying you to that exact location at that exact date). So what choice does even the privacy-advocate have, besides camping out on the road in a tent and boycotting anti-cash establishments? I've read of some Scandinavian countries already phasing out cash, which is once again a reliance society fosters. If Stallman walks into a store and asks someone to pay for his purchase with their CC because the store doesn't take cash, are you too going to make some contrived anti-vaccination comparison?
I'm not sure if the original poster had this in mind, but Stallman's behavior in this regard would be hard to reconcile under a Kantian ethical framework [1].
To expand, as I understand it, the Kantian ethical categorical imperative is something like, "behave as if what you do will be universal." Stallman's behavior requires enough people to not do what he does that he is not inconvenienced.
If he's advocating not carrying a phone under the current situation, he shouldn't be asking to use someone else's.
I don't think he would say it's ethically problematic for him to own a phone. He just prefers not to because he doesn't want to own a device that he cannot control. No Kantian issues, others need not share his preference.
right, if enough people share his preference they'll develop alternative tech to solve the communication problem.
things like the wiphone which is wifi only. surely stallman would be fine to use that, just as he is fine to use a laptop with wifi. it means he needs to get wifi access to make calls but it would still solve the tracking problem.
i keep thinking about this with regards to rechargeable public transit cards. they are anonymous, but each card still has an ID and allows to track movement patterns. so to mess things up i like to swap cards around...
It's nice to read a write-up on RMS which doesn't editorialise what Stallman says, but just reports it polemicists often get criticised on interpretations not on their actual words.
He brings up an interesting problem for smartphone (or any cellphone) use. I know I will never see this as an available product but I would like: something like my Apple Watch that had a simple hardware switch that would turn off cell and GPS connectivity. Then I could occasionally check my messages or missed calls but most of the time have communications turned off. Note that the Apple Watch has an "airplane mode" that turns off cell connections (I think) but not sure about GPS.
I have read about Linux cellphones that do have hardware cutoff switches so that would be a good way to remain private most of the time.
EDIT: it looks like going to airplane mode also disables GPS: "when the user activates airplane mode, they will disable Bluetooth, GPS, phone calls, and Wi-Fi" nice!!
EDIT 2: starting with iOS 10, GPS reception stays on in airplane mode
Is this a massive misunderstanding of GPS? What are you hoping to do here?
GPS is a passive antenna / receiver. You don't emit anything with GPS, you just passively pick up signals from GNSS satellites. You could "turn it off" by unpowering the GPS receiver, but there's little benefit there, and that may not be possible because most of these are soldered directly to the mainboard for power efficiency reasons. These embedded receivers barely use any power whatsoever, and if your cellular / WiFi is already off, it's certainly not transmitting it in real time. If you want to stop location logging you would need to opt out of location logging. I don't know if that's possible with Apple Watch products, but turning GPS "off" doesn't tend to make a lot of sense in many contexts.
Turning GPS devices off could allow you to avoid attack over RF against GPS device firmware. This 2012 paper details some possible attacks, including a bug that lead to the GPS device continually rebooting.
when GPS is on, my phone uses more power. maybe because there are apps running tracking the GPS data.
GPS itself doesn't transmit. but apps log the data and they to the transmitting.
my main concern is any apps that need location from time to time. there is a permission to allow access to location data, but switching gps off does not toggle that permission, and apps still track location through wifi and cell locations, and i can't find any way to toggle that.
I don't know about Apple watches, but I do something kind of like this on my Android phone using Tasker. I have it toggle airplane mode for 55 minutes at a time, "waking up" for 5 minutes every hour to send and receive messages. Operating in this mode reduces my digital footprint and has a fantastic effect on battery life, but it's kind of a drag for people who want to call me. My dream phone would have a built in one-way pager radio to alert me of incoming calls and would only connect to the cellular network if I chose to accept the call.
You don't have to put airplane mode on. You could just disable all data instead (LTE, WLAN, BT). This will disable all radios except phone calls. That way, incoming calls still work.
On my Samsung S8, airplane mode doesn't disable GPS. It doesn't need to (GPS is a signal that your device receives) and I'm glad that it doesn't. On budget flights where I've been seated near the window I've sometimes managed to see where we are using GPS.
on lineage airplane mode turns of everything, which i like to save power, but it also allows me to turn stuff back on individually, including wifi (useful for inflight wifi) and GPS
You can do this by putting a phone in a faraday cage. A quick search shows various wallet-sized poaches available, but I can't vouch for their effectiveness. I wonder why they're not more popular, nor even mentioned, among all the talk of "hardware switches".
I have read that if its not in airplane mode, a phone will consume more power trying to establish a connection than a phone that has good signal.
Having a hardware switch is also just more of a usability thing, make it a simple choice to turn off the radios/notifications, don't make me go into settings to have some peace and quiet...
Not a radio engineer, but it's the shape of the Faraday cage that matters I think, not the size. The required shape most likely depends on the wavelength, as the idea is to distort the waves... Basically if your grid is too tight (ie a sheet of metal) the waves keep their shape, but if the grid is too loose, the waves just pass right through.
That's what I've been told by fellow meshnet hobbyists anyhow ;)
In a strange coincidence, I was flying back from Bangalore in late Jan and the long curly haired person in the Emirates check-in line looked awfully like Richard Stallman. That's because it was Richard Stallman and in good Indian fashion, he was bring dropped off by someone who clearly adored him. I can't say I reach that level of admiration, but it's good there are people like him in the world.
Donations aren't enough.
Support based models like RedHat lead to bad incentives and seems to limit one to enterprise clients. Its an option however, but then you're not directly selling your software either, but rather running a side gig alongside development.
Most other models that I see working involve saas / hosting, which is a good compromise but also weird: the creator earns nothing if you benefit from the license and use it to host your own instance, which is unfortunate and yet amazing for the end users.
There is also the industry association model like Linux uses, which has merit: various stakeholders buy an interest in a project to fund open development. This isn't feasible for the average entrepreneur though, although the creator of Vue apparently has some respectable funding.
The creators of something so great for end users should be able to get rich for doing so, rather than needing to make personal financial sacrifices to dedicate their time to the work. It should be more win win.