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

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

On 2006-04-11, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:13:31 GMT, Justin Gombos wrote:
>
>> First of all, there are no conflicts of interest.
>
> Is it good to have no conflicts? 

Absolutely.  If the goal is quality software, conflicting interests
hinder quality, by definition.  

> I would say, what we have now is rather a lack of [technological]
> conflicts and true competition. Technical superiority is long not an
> issue.

That's pretty vague.  Would you clarify?  What do you mean by "what we
have now"?

> I agree with Randy. There are two fundamental problems neither model
> actually responds:
>
> 1. Rewarding true inventors (rather than monopolists, publishers,
> investors, lobbyists etc.)

There are intrinsic rewards with creating GNU software.  When you say
"rewarding" here, are you talking purely in terms of remuneration
(that is, extrinsic rewards)?

I must say folks have lost sight of the purpose of copyright.
Contrary to popular belief, copyrights did not emerge for the purpose
of rewarding producers of creative works.  That's only the means.  The
purpose of copyright is not to "put food on the table" (as Randy might
say), but it is to get creative works to the public.  The intended
beneficiary is everyone participating in society.  The role of
copyright was purely to use artificial incentives as a /means/ for
artists/creators to produce.  The consumers only had to give up their
right to copy (in a time period when no consumer a viable way of
copying books).  So people gladly gave up rights that they could not
exercise anyway; which was a reasonable deal at the time.

Copyright has recently turned into something that actually *reduces*
the distribution of creative works to the public.  It has been
perverted to reward a few (excessively), and punish those who fail to
contribute -- when such extrinsic rewards are not needed to motivate
the creation in the first place.

Copyright history deviates from the topic, but it had to be clarified
whether rewarding the inventor is a means or an end.  Ultimately
you're saying that failing to reward true inventors is a problem, but
that's only a problem to the extent that such a failure inhibits works
from being produced.  Yet GNU software exists, so where's the problem?

Moreover, if quality software is the goal, the traditional model is
inadequite.  The contemporary copyleft GNU type model is better suited
for this.  To illustrate, you can figure that Microsoft products were
strictly produced under Bill Gates cathedral (closed) software model.
Now compare the quality of those products to the quality of GNU tools.
Need I say more here?

> 2. Selecting targets of public interest (70% of software isn't needed
> independently on its quality.)

What do you mean by this?

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