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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00,
	HK_RANDOM_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,afb4d45672b1e262
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc06.POSTED!20ae255c!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq>
Subject: Re: Making money on open source, if not by selling _support_,
 then how?
References: <LIednWDbPNgXGbPZRVnysQ@pipex.net>
 <vZWdneJu064bV6zZRVn-tQ@megapath.net> <PJi_f.1717$7Z6.1073@trnddc06>
 <7NOdne-iYtWmIafZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@megapath.net>
 <292bf$443bb4e4$45491254$20549@KNOLOGY.NET> <vIP_f.5687$Q92.2119@trnddc04>
 <sazhuikmw20y.1v9dtyxx8ddiy.dlg@40tude.net> <z5S_f.4049$XI6.1174@trnddc05>
 <443bf77d$0$11063$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
 <RI7%f.4698$7Z6.3710@trnddc06> <hdEwiijzUU4j@eisner.encompasserve.org>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux)
Message-ID: <voj%f.4816$7Z6.1581@trnddc06>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 03:16:43 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.44.77.228
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: trnddc06 1144898203 129.44.77.228 (Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:16:43 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:16:43 EDT
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3808
Date: 2006-04-13T03:16:43+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2006-04-12, Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote:
> In article <RI7%f.4698$7Z6.3710@trnddc06>, Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq> writes:
>> 
>> Conflict of interest.  For both interests to coexist, there must be
>> a compromise.  In this case, software quality is compromised.  So
>> to recap, it is favorable to have no conflict of interest so you
>> don't have to reduce quality.
>
> If your sole goal is software quality.

Right, I was purely addressing the matter of quality there; nothing
more.

> But if there is not also a goal of software usability, the net
> effect of the software may be zero.

In terms of usability, open source software is clearly more usable
because you're free to modify it, aggregate different pieces,
redistribute..  The idea actually emerged because Stallman was
aggravated with unusable black box software that he was constantly
forced to make use of.

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