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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no 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: 11232c,992bfa9d3803bf5b X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 10ed7b,243844de28aa7187 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ed7b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-22 20:36:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!luth.se!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" 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: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:06:05 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: 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: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1019491566 28027 136.170.200.133 (22 Apr 2002 16:06:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Apr 2002 16:06:06 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22957 misc.misc:6810 comp.lang.java.programmer:149105 talk.bizarre:22123 Date: 2002-04-22T16:06:06+00:00 List-Id: 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 ....... MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:5ee5b646.0204201744.587dfec7@posting.google.com... > Unlike a proprietary software company that can use restrictive > licenses to keep its customer base captive, > we can't just stop development, degrade support, and sit > back and milk the customer base, since that would be financially > disadvantageous to us (and at the risk of