From the Corporate point of view, there are very valid arguments that state that companies who do use free software and extend that software (e.g. RedHat), are indeed paying for the service that is provided to them.
If I, in running a company, save myself a small fortune by using Linux on every desktop, Apache on every server, then I have saved myself a large amont of money. If I now employ a number of programmers to extend those products (or fix bugs), then I am, in effect, paying for the software I use. That payment would appear to go the progrsammers fixing bugs, but when I distribute my bug-fixes / whole new products to others, I am paying *them* back for the service they have given me.
This is why, in my opinion, free software is perfectly viable economically: the misperception is that the only form of payment is money. Payment also occurs in the form of savings, contributions and the respect derived from programming.
Slashdot Mirror
If I, in running a company, save myself a small fortune by using Linux on every desktop, Apache on every server, then I have saved myself a large amont of money. If I now employ a number of programmers to extend those products (or fix bugs), then I am, in effect, paying for the software I use. That payment would appear to go the progrsammers fixing bugs, but when I distribute my bug-fixes / whole new products to others, I am paying *them* back for the service they have given me.
This is why, in my opinion, free software is perfectly viable economically: the misperception is that the only form of payment is money. Payment also occurs in the form of savings, contributions and the respect derived from programming.