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

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 02:58:50 GMT, Justin Gombos wrote:

> 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.

So, if everything is fine, then why quality is so poor?

>>> 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.

No, the burden of proof / enlightenment is on your side. I don't see any
functioning mechanism of rewarding in either model.

I fully agree with "openness" as a legal right of each citizen to know what
is going on in the things directly influencing his/her life. It is no
different from ingredients list of a food product. But it isn't a major
component of quality, neither it is a way of rewarding.

>>> 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.

This is another inherently invalid argument. A consumer, by definition, is
somebody unable or unwilling to produce the product by itself. "Unable"
here means, in particular, economically, technically, mentally, physically
etc infeasible.

>> 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.

I.e. as soon as we take a thing where mission is critical (=quality is
paramount), you give up and let the government to intervene. This presumes
a better motivation of programmers, than ones operating at the bazar. Why
so little trust in customers? I vividly imagine how family members of those
who suffered in the most recent plane crash, would turn their computers on
and start to patch the software. It is an excellent motivation too, want to
return from next day trip? - join our Brake Control System Initiative!

>> 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.

No, I don't want to do the integration work by myself. I am a customer. I
want to do only my job. This is independent on openness. Example: Linux
distributions.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de