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

[Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq>]

On 2006-04-12, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>
>>> 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.

My comment stands.  There are enough rewards for open source
development to continue - so there is no need to introduce more
rewards.  The lack of extrinsic rewards are not a problem, because
there is enough motivation for open source development without it.
Even when extrinsic rewards become necessary to motivate development
for a particular product, offering compensation directly to a
developer does not require leaving the open source model.

> [...]
>> 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.

Absolutely.  It supports the anti-copyright /part/ of your point.
This is why the closed source cathedral approach fails.  

CopyLEFT on the other hand opens distribution to the public - so this
is where open source succeeds in getting creative works to the
consumer.  If I understand you, you're claiming that the lack of
rewards is a "problem" for both models, but you've failed to show this
for open source.

>> 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.

It solves the problem of getting the tools to the consumers.  It
solves this problem very well, particularly because unsatisfied
consumers are further empowered serve themselves by modifying the
product as needed.

Trying to encourage extrinsic motivators is a solution lacking a
problem.  GNU creators are already motivated.  This software has been
growing for over twenty years now, so it's well beyond any kind of
temporary "protest."

> 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.

Flight control software is an excellent example of something that
should be open source; particularly because it would not require
volunteers.  The federal government (a likely consumer who is
prohibited from copyright) could hire contractors to produce flight
control software under a contract that prohibits the contractors from
copyrighting it.

>> 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.

Right, so not everyone will understand that comparison.  Some may see
the evidence immediately by comparing the products of the two
approaches, while others might look at the motivating forces, like the
freedom to produce good works in the open source community versus the
restrictions that prevent closed source products from achieving
quality, particularly (but not limited to) the bottom line.

>>> 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.

Sure, this is an issue with closed source, where you must take the
whole black box in one piece.  You might not want IE, but if you need
Windows, too bad.  Again, the open source model solves this by
enabling the user to be as selective as they are technically able to,
from keeping tools small, and right down to trashing code fragments
and recompiling.

-- 
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.