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

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:56:47 GMT, Justin Gombos wrote:

> On 2006-04-11, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:

>> I would say, what we have now is rather a lack of [technological]
>> conflicts and true competition. Technical superiority is long not an
>> issue.
> 
> That's pretty vague.  Would you clarify?  What do you mean by "what we
> have now"?

We have various monopolies which subsidize complete kinds of software with
others things. This effectively kills competition and technical progress.

>> I agree with Randy. There are two fundamental problems neither model
>> actually responds:
>>
>> 1. Rewarding true inventors (rather than monopolists, publishers,
>> investors, lobbyists etc.)
> 
> There are intrinsic rewards with creating GNU software.  When you say
> "rewarding" here, are you talking purely in terms of remuneration
> (that is, extrinsic rewards)?

Both. See Randy's answer.

[...]
> Copyright has recently turned into something that actually *reduces*
> the distribution of creative works to the public.

Yes, and it only supports the point. The copyright and patent systems do
not reward inventors. They do publishers.

> Yet GNU software exists, so where's the problem?

The problem is in the word "yet." GNU is a protest movement, protest
against the existing [bad] system, by people who have money earned
elsewhere. I don't see how this can solve the problem. Is it the idea that
the flight-control software should be developed by welfare recipients? The
crux is funding. Funding from support is inherently corrupt, I agree with
Randy.

> Moreover, if quality software is the goal, the traditional model is
> inadequite.  The contemporary copyleft GNU type model is better suited
> for this.  To illustrate, you can figure that Microsoft products were
> strictly produced under Bill Gates cathedral (closed) software model.
> Now compare the quality of those products to the quality of GNU tools.
> Need I say more here?

Scientific questions aren't decided by voting. Everything depends on who is
the priest in the cathedral. It can easily turn to an orgy.

>> 2. Selecting targets of public interest (70% of software isn't needed
>> independently on its quality.)
> 
> What do you mean by this?

The system feeds itself. Go to any software store and ask yourself, if all
these products were for free, would you take time to install them. With the
software written on customer demand, it is even worse. It is probably 80%
of software which is not needed, and even damaging to customer's core
business.

Probably the software market should be regulated, as one of mass
consumption products. At least the fundamental rule - no liability, no pay
- should be enforced. That should let some air out of the bubble...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de