Re: Making money on open source, if not by selling _support_, then how?

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 10:32 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>  Is it the idea that
> the flight-control software should be developed by welfare recipients?

It is the idea that flight-control software will be developed
by paid programmers ("they need to eat!"), whatever the license or
"openness" can be. What RMS seems to have had in mind is a system
of rewards distribution (money). There are similar systems of reward
distribution for works of art. At least in the country where you
and I live these are well known organizations. They do fund those
who under current circumstances find less "buyers" than their
colleagues. (There are flaws in this system.) A reason is that
pricing for works of art is, uh.., highly volatile and contingent
independent of quality and effort.

So if you appreciate what your less successful colleagues produce,
you help by alleviating the effect the current market has on their
income, in a collaborative, yet distant way.
(van Gogh didn't have to starve because he was supported(!) by family
relations.) Actually, you don't have to like your competition. Still,
I would feel much better if people understood that each of us
can make a living when the others can do that, too.


And besides, open source is not necessarily the same thing as
GNU software. In fact, even many of the GPLed programs are not GNU
software.

>  The
> crux is funding. Funding from support is inherently corrupt, I agree with
> Randy.

It might be of advantage to the discussion if you clarify what you mean
by "support", as others have tried already.


> Scientific questions aren't decided by voting. Everything depends on who is
> the priest in the cathedral.

The "priest" may well depend on votes.