RE: Software Economics

["Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>]

From: Robert C. Leif
To: Warren W. Gay et al.
There is no economic difference between the devastating effect on
competition of a zero priced browser and a zero priced Ada compiler. The
first was done in response to a serious business threat; the second was
done because of government support and ideology. The question is: What
is the best economic strategy to maximize the investment of capital and
labor in Ada products? 

The general consensus for technology other than information technology
is to encourage the investors to believe that they will obtain a good
return on their investment. The concept of moderate prices and a large
market has been very profitable for companies, such as Microsoft. This
concept has been successfully applied by software vendors of "free
software", such as Red Hat.
GNAT has had two advantages over the affordable Ada compilers. 1) A
price of zero and 2) Dewar et al. believed in and developed in Ada.
Randy Brukardt et al. heroically tried to follow the same course with a
very moderate priced compiler; but were undercapitalized.

I have described an economic strategy that I believe would give Ada a
technological Advantage. 
R. C. Leif, "SIGAda '98, Workshop: How do We Expedite the Commercial Use
of Ada?." Ada letters XIX, No 1 pp. 28-39 (1999).
R. C. Leif, "Ada Developers Cooperative License (Draft) Version 0.3",
Ada letters XIX, No 1 pp. 97-107 (1999).

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of Warren W. Gay
VE3WWG
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:27 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: OT: Software Economics was RE: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare
board?

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> From: Bob Leif
> To: Tom Moran et al.
> The GNU approach is essentially monopolistic. 

This seems unfair, and a sad statement to make IMHO.

> The ultimate in unfair
> competition is to make your product available for free. 

So you think it is unfair for your neighbour next door
to create a software module and share it with you
for free?  After all, this competes with "professional
monopolists".

Or are you saying this is OK, as long as he doesn't
share it with the entire world?  After all, the
"professional monopolists" need to make a monopoly,
er, living ;-)

Your statements don't make a lot of sense to me.

> As opposed to
> professional monopolists, such as Microsoft; the GNU approach instead
of
> maximizing return actually minimized it. 

You are evaluating the big picture in terms of a "return".
But what type of "return" are you using for a measure
here?  Monetary returns for the authors? Recoginition?
Control? And for whom(s)?

> Since it saves hardware vendors
> considerable expense, the GNU approach is an excellent solution for
> them.
> Again, I must emphasize that my comments are orthogonal to the
question
> of making the source code available. I am in favor of the customer
> having the information included in the sources. 

What "information included in the sources" are we talking
about? Comments?  Or are you referring to the source code
itself and its availability?

> However, I am totally
> against anything that would decrease the value of intellectual
property.

So you don't use any of the FSF/GNU tools?  If you are, you are
using intellectual property.  Are you adding or decreasing that
intellectual property?

Curious comments, you make. Warren.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg