Don't get me wrong, I'm no great lover of Microsoft - I run Linux exclusively on my machine - but Reiser's comments (you did read the article, right?) echo exactly what MS VP Mundie has said about Open Source. It is certainly bad for business, or at least the software business.
Businesses that use software can benefit greatly from Open-Source programs; however, a software-only company - the ones who actually write, debug, and support the code - cannot expect to make money by giving away their product. Reiser's idea for open sales is rather new (at least, I've not heard of anything similar), and as such, has some faults. Overall, however, I think the concept of open sales is a potentially workable idea that needs to be expounded upon before being put into practice.
The way I understand it, open sales works like this: several open-source vendors contribute software to a pool, which anyone can access, modify, and use. Allegedly, companies and individuals will subscribe to these pools, and pay money so that their name shows up in a list of sponsors. It is unclear to me that this will be profitable or that it represents a departure from the economically bankrupt business models which characterize Free Software. The most obvious problem with Reiser's theory is that sponsors lists are most likely to either be 1) ignored, or 2) obtrusive (and possibly both) . I can only imagine where this could lead; am I going to be reading the source for a Perl script and see AOL ads commented in? I can see where being mentioned in the code would be useful to a support company; if you provide support for a particular program, such as Apache, then the most obvious place to market would be in the install process of that program. On the other hand, one thing the Linux community is reknowned for is its excellent community-support base. Will companies and individuals be willing to pay for support when they can find the answer themselves at no cost by searching Google?
Another problem I have with the system as described is the donation redistribution scheme. Reiser suggests that the software fees are to be redistributed among the contributors at random. I can see where he is coming from in a way; random distribution keeps the licensing monies from being taken by just a few. However, some companies and individuals are going to contribute more in the way of code than others. This should be taken into account in the redistribution scheme. Those who bear a heavier load should reap greater rewards.
There is also the problem of who is going to maintain and control these software pools. Are the companies who contribute code to these pools also going to be responsible for distributing the gains? Will the sponsors be allowed to have a say in who they will pay, and how much? Will there be standards to determine who deserves how much of the profits according to how much code they contributed?
There are many considerations to be made in regards to open sales, and it is not clear that this method will be able to produce a profit. Perhaps if software development companies can find new methods of providing value to their customers they can give away their products and still make money, but for now the rule seems to be that you cannot turn a profit by giving away valuable products for free.
There seem to be a lot of people here who are confused about the exact nature of the Chinese government. Let me remind you, The so-called People's Republic of China is a Communist Dictatorship. They have said explicity numerous times that the United States is their enemy. Unfortunately, most Americans today, and certainly the younger generations, do not know what kind of horrors people living under communist rule must face. The killing at Tiananmen Square was only the tip of the iceberg. The PRC is nothing more and nothing less than a gang of thugs who exercise power via military might. Apologizing to this gang of thugs is not an option. It is tragic enough that we recognize the PRC as a legitimate government; we must not appease them. President Bush needs to take action against the Chinese, not stand around pondering whether we should apologize for their pilot hitting our plane. The PRC is pushing our buttons; we have a new Chief Executive, and they want to know what they can get away with on his watch. Clinton folded like a bad poker hand; let's hope Bush doesn't make the same mistake. President Bush would do well to take a stance against China similar to President Reagan's stance against the Soviet Union. If Bush wants results, he should give the PRC a deadline, say 48 hours, to return the crew and our plane--fully intact--or we will recognize Taiwan's independence from the PRC (something we should do anyway; Taiwan is a democracy and should be encouraged and aided by the U.S.) and begin arming the Taiwanese military with the anti-missile technology that China so greatly fears. Take away their "Most Favored Nation" status. Vote against their hosting the 2008 Olympics. Bush needs to stop worrying about this incident harming our relations with China. They regard us as the enemy, and we regard them as a source of cheap labor. If anything, this conflict may have the beneficial effect of leading to an economic boycott on China. At one time, this country and its citizens knew that Communism is Bad. Now, we tend to see Communist countries as an economic benefit(!). If this standoff can change that, it may well be worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong, I'm no great lover of Microsoft - I run Linux exclusively on my machine - but Reiser's comments (you did read the article, right?) echo exactly what MS VP Mundie has said about Open Source. It is certainly bad for business, or at least the software business.
Businesses that use software can benefit greatly from Open-Source programs; however, a software-only company - the ones who actually write, debug, and support the code - cannot expect to make money by giving away their product. Reiser's idea for open sales is rather new (at least, I've not heard of anything similar), and as such, has some faults. Overall, however, I think the concept of open sales is a potentially workable idea that needs to be expounded upon before being put into practice.
The way I understand it, open sales works like this: several open-source vendors contribute software to a pool, which anyone can access, modify, and use. Allegedly, companies and individuals will subscribe to these pools, and pay money so that their name shows up in a list of sponsors. It is unclear to me that this will be profitable or that it represents a departure from the economically bankrupt business models which characterize Free Software. The most obvious problem with Reiser's theory is that sponsors lists are most likely to either be 1) ignored, or 2) obtrusive (and possibly both) . I can only imagine where this could lead; am I going to be reading the source for a Perl script and see AOL ads commented in? I can see where being mentioned in the code would be useful to a support company; if you provide support for a particular program, such as Apache, then the most obvious place to market would be in the install process of that program. On the other hand, one thing the Linux community is reknowned for is its excellent community-support base. Will companies and individuals be willing to pay for support when they can find the answer themselves at no cost by searching Google?
Another problem I have with the system as described is the donation redistribution scheme. Reiser suggests that the software fees are to be redistributed among the contributors at random. I can see where he is coming from in a way; random distribution keeps the licensing monies from being taken by just a few. However, some companies and individuals are going to contribute more in the way of code than others. This should be taken into account in the redistribution scheme. Those who bear a heavier load should reap greater rewards.
There is also the problem of who is going to maintain and control these software pools. Are the companies who contribute code to these pools also going to be responsible for distributing the gains? Will the sponsors be allowed to have a say in who they will pay, and how much? Will there be standards to determine who deserves how much of the profits according to how much code they contributed?
There are many considerations to be made in regards to open sales, and it is not clear that this method will be able to produce a profit. Perhaps if software development companies can find new methods of providing value to their customers they can give away their products and still make money, but for now the rule seems to be that you cannot turn a profit by giving away valuable products for free.
==================
There seem to be a lot of people here who are confused about the exact nature of the Chinese government. Let me remind you, The so-called People's Republic of China is a Communist Dictatorship. They have said explicity numerous times that the United States is their enemy. Unfortunately, most Americans today, and certainly the younger generations, do not know what kind of horrors people living under communist rule must face. The killing at Tiananmen Square was only the tip of the iceberg. The PRC is nothing more and nothing less than a gang of thugs who exercise power via military might. Apologizing to this gang of thugs is not an option. It is tragic enough that we recognize the PRC as a legitimate government; we must not appease them. President Bush needs to take action against the Chinese, not stand around pondering whether we should apologize for their pilot hitting our plane. The PRC is pushing our buttons; we have a new Chief Executive, and they want to know what they can get away with on his watch. Clinton folded like a bad poker hand; let's hope Bush doesn't make the same mistake. President Bush would do well to take a stance against China similar to President Reagan's stance against the Soviet Union. If Bush wants results, he should give the PRC a deadline, say 48 hours, to return the crew and our plane--fully intact--or we will recognize Taiwan's independence from the PRC (something we should do anyway; Taiwan is a democracy and should be encouraged and aided by the U.S.) and begin arming the Taiwanese military with the anti-missile technology that China so greatly fears. Take away their "Most Favored Nation" status. Vote against their hosting the 2008 Olympics. Bush needs to stop worrying about this incident harming our relations with China. They regard us as the enemy, and we regard them as a source of cheap labor. If anything, this conflict may have the beneficial effect of leading to an economic boycott on China. At one time, this country and its citizens knew that Communism is Bad. Now, we tend to see Communist countries as an economic benefit(!). If this standoff can change that, it may well be worth it.