Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?

["Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com>]

"Richard Riehle" <richard@adaworks.com> wrote:

> Ted Dennison wrote:

> > I would submit that this is because the "release it to the public
> > domain" step was never followed through on. If they had done that
> > first, instead of planning on doing it last, things might have been
> > different.

> And who was going to pay Randy and RR Software for their effort in
> developing CLAW?    It is all well and good to want free software,
> but someone, somewhere needs to pay for it.    One reason we don't
> see more bindings to more environments for Ada is the widespread
> reluctance of people to commit resources when there is no financial
> benefit.   Even GNAT will disappear if ACT discovers there is
> no financial reward in supporting it.

But since in point of fact Dr. Dewar and company seem to be making a
quite comfortable living, perhaps the problem instead is that the
expectation of being paid for software up front, rather than being paid
for enhancements happy customers want to that software once it is in
widespread use, is no longer the best model.

It is tough as heck to take that first step, and the low return on
investment of shareware distributors is certainly off-putting, but if
the distribution step comes early, then there is a fairly low investment
before the software developer learns if what has been created is going
to be a viable "maintain-ware" product, while if the distribution is
left until late, "giving it away for nothing" is simply too painful to
contemplate.

I'm guessing, since I haven't enough entrepenurial skills to fill a
thimble (my brother got them all in our family), but I think Ted has the
right of it.

xanthian.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG