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

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

On 2006-04-12, Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:
> Justin Gombos wrote:
>
> Conflicting interests can also bring software production back on
> track. How about this: Sometimes programmers go astray and enjoy
> themselves writing wonderfully sophisticated "high quality"
> Ada. Meanwhile the toaster company goes out of business because
> their embedded temperature sensors will be so great, when they will
> finally arrive...

Right, so high quality products can have side effects, one of which is
lengthy development time.  This doesn't diminish the quality, but
rather the viability for the toaster company to leverage business gain
from whatever open source project they've targeted.

Your example requires you to combine two different open source models.
If the toaster company funds the development, then their interests are
in the forefront of the project, enabling them to control both the
quality and direction of the project.  If the toaster company is not
funding the effort, then they have no expectation of what direction
the product will take.  In this case, the problem is not with the open
source project they're trying to use, but rather the toaster company's
inability to plan ahead and select the right tool for the job (and
insource what they need if their supplier can't deliver what they
need, when they need it).

> How could we possibly know which interest are the ones that make us
> write the really great software products? What exactly is the one
> interest in the set of conflicting interests that should dominate
> because no compromise can be better?

In terms of pure quality, interests that favor quality should dominate
opposing interests, obviously.  One way or another, profits and rapid
production are often the competing interest that reduces quality.  If
you're focused on the bottom line, you must limit quality to that of
the requirement; you would be a poor businessman if you didn't.
Because the open source paradigm (particularly the non-profit variety)
is largely free from these conflicts, it naturally acquires the
charactoristics inherent in producing great products.

> Maybe there is not so much a compromising compromise but rather a
> method of combining the various interests into a satisfying solution
> to a problem. Presuming a problem is well defined, ever, in the real
> world.

Sure, a /satisfying/ solution (with satisfactory product quality) has
more tolerance for accommodating other interests, such as rapid
development and profit margin.

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