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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b30240b5a381bbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-23 17:12:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Software Economics Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:11:06 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1030147922 25599 137.194.161.2 (24 Aug 2002 00:12:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:02 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Envelope-From: rleif@rleif.com X-Envelope-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3D666253.5060408@cogeco.ca> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28354 Date: 2002-08-23T17:11:06-07:00 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