From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10a146,243844de28aa7187 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 10ed7b,243844de28aa7187 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ed7b,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,992bfa9d3803bf5b X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-23 05:44:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,misc.misc,comp.lang.java.programmer,talk.bizarre Subject: Re: How Open Source software developers pay the bills, from within a successful such operation (was): Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community? Date: 23 Apr 2002 05:44:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204230444.6684ac@posting.google.com> References: <3CB94312.5040802@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204150645.62003096@posting.google.com> <3CBCEB15.E104D1F5@adaworks.com> <35c5c360dfe83cb34ea9648445bd0e95.48257@mygate.mailgate.org> <5ee5b646.0204190620.1902ede@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0204201744.587dfec7@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019565862 21693 127.0.0.1 (23 Apr 2002 12:44:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Apr 2002 12:44:22 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22985 misc.misc:6823 comp.lang.java.programmer:149239 talk.bizarre:22143 Date: 2002-04-23T12:44:22+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:... > I don't know of any company in any industry that can get away with that sort > of attitude for very long. This seems especially true for the software > industry - for either "proprietary" of "open" companies. I don't think the > license has anything to do with it. The specific license might raise/lower > the entrance/exit barriers, but in the end, a company must provide value > with their software or the customer will go elsewhere. Microsoft with all > its proprietary licensing still brought out software that cost substantially > less and provided substantially more value than (for example) OS-360. In > addition, they *must* find some way of creating *more* value in the future > or the cash cow dries up. They can't lock in their customers any moreso than > DeSoto, Studebaker, Dusenberg, Cord, American Motors, Delorean ....... You miss the point. Of course this (behavior commonly referred to as "bottom feeding") cannot persist for long with respect to a particular product, but it is remarkably common for a company with a proprietary software product to essentially abandon continued support, and then continue to profit from a captive market for what can be a suprising long time. All I am noting is that our model won't let us do this for even a short time, and that seems a good thing all round. As a company, our policy is to rely on rapid innovation rather than on restrictive intellectual property rights. We are convinced that if we continue to innovate rapidly, we can continue to be successful, and we think this is a model that benefits both us and our customers. I should also say that I think it leads to a much more satisfying environment for software developers. I still spend a lot of my time improving GNAT by adding new functionality and improving what is already there, and I find it very satisfying that the code I write is open for examination (and hopefully appreciation :-) by others. In more concrete terms, I think that this openness is one of the reasons that no software engineer has ever left Ada Core Technologies in its seven years of existance. Which is surprising, especially since we can't dangle stock options worth potential millions as an incentive. Again, please interpret the above remembering that I have an interest (both financial, but more importantly personal, and from the point of view of general success of Ada) in the continuing success of ACT :-) Robert Dewar