"Secondly, the freedom to distribute the code, coupled with the zero copy cost, allows the end-user to share this overhead with those who have similar requirements. "
I really don't understand where you got the insane idea that the costs are in the distribuation of software? It isn't! The costs associated with software is in the PRODUCTION of it.
I have sold quite some development support for different software throughout the years so I have experience (unlike most people here). There is not, by a long shot enough money in it to pay the bills. It is a shame that it is so, but it is.
"Moral: they may not buy the options, but they won't buy the basic package if you don't have options. "
This is my experience also. I didn't say that you shouldn't sell support, you MUST sell support if people are going to buy your products (as you say, people need to know that help exists if needed). Atleast with enterprise software this is the case. However, if you spend a couple of millions on developing a piece of software you got to make this back from the people who uses it, as simple as that.
"Only if your revenue depends on restricted distribution. "
Thats the only one that can make up a working business model. Sorry, but you just can't live on making for an example a office-suite and sell support for it. If you spend a couple of millions making a peice of software (beleive me, that isn't much) you got to get those money from its users. And they wont pay it for service&support. Like this guy said, they made totally about $200 on service&support. They would go bancrypsy in a snap. They only thing that makes companies like ximiam etc go around is venture capital. Then they run out of these they are finished.
"Sure. Alan Cox (alan@redhat.com) isn't a developer. "
Didn't you notice:
"...they are not developers (as their major business anyway). These people..."
?
They develop some software inhouse and they sponsor a few external project but that is just a fraction.
"Sometimes I wonder why people open their mouths about open source / free software when they quite clearly have never read either the OSI or FSF web pages. It's quite astounding."
I have ofcause read both but they don't present realistic business models. You can't live on the service&support model when you develop software. I would like that too, but it just isn't so.
1: Free as in speech gives free as in beer. If you allow unrestricted distribution you will loose your revenue.
2: No, Redhat is not an example of a working software development business model. Redhat lives on selling other peoples work (nothing wrong with that, they have choosen to give it away), they are not developers (as their major business anyway). These people are developers and must make a revenue on the products they develop.
The gnome people (eazel, ximiam etc) are burning money in a insainly rate, these people are not.
Sure, people want free stuff. Most people would want free cars and houses too if possible. The peoblem is that it's just not possible.
This company has a working business model. They are able to pay their bills and salaries. When the gnome-people run out of venture capital they are finished because they have no revenue. The service&support myth that GNU pushes so hard don't exist.
The only way for a company that produces something (for example software) to survive it to charge for it. If they don't, they will die.
What he said about service&support.
"have probably made about $200 doing it, "
I have said this a long time without anyone listening. The service&support business model DOES NOT EXISTS.
What we need on Linux is more companies like this. Companies that will survive in the long run (even after they run out of venture capital) with a sound business model giving us great usable software.
To behave ethically you must always alert the wrongdoing part and then let them correct it anyway they want to.
Then if you have been harmed economically while the wrongdoing was taking place you can ask to be compensated for this. In this case the code was free so it's not the case here.
Take patents as an example. If someone is breaking your patent you must always let them fix that. You can't just sue the ass of them.
That is not morally defendable, maybe they did it by mistake or some other circumstances we don't know about.
Atlest this is the case in all western countries witch has similuar laws.
"When the tiny handful of parties who control such things "
It is abolutely clear that for our system to work there must be good competition. Thats why the DOJ is trying to break up microsoft. Pricefixing (witch is only possible in an environment with competiton problens) is a bad thing.
"Nor is the ability to "timeshift" your viewing by any other means; "
I agree that timeshifting should be ok. If the individual has paid for the content he or she should be allowed to view it whenever he/she wants to.
"Generally, what actually happens is that the creative talents are raped at gunpoint by those that control distribution channels. "
So you suggest that instead of private deals bewteen authors and distributors their work should be given away?
That would really help. When you download a mp3 you DO hurt the artist.
"Copy protection seeks to prevent the eventual enrichment of the public domain "
No, just like copyright it's there to make sure the authors can continue to do their job.
If you look back in history there has been archivements throughout history but the last 100 years has been absolutely unmatched. There are several reasons for this but IP laws are the most important one.
Some big archivements where made before IP laws was put in place but if you look at the last 100 years it has been an amazing development that is absolutely unmatched in history. To a big degree thanks to IP law.
That doesn't mean the IP owners should be allowed to do whatever they want to but have a right to make sure they are getting paid by the people who use it.
"Simply put, lots of people can't imagine life without TV. They'll go pretty far with whatever scheme the industry invents before they give up and do something else with their time. "
So? They can buy it for whatever reason they want to. As long as noone is forcing people to pay I don't see any problem. That most people are paying, either because they want to watch, for social reason or some other reason thats quite irrelevant.
Isn't that up to the author and the corp to agree upon?
I don't think someone is holding a gun to either parties heads, do you?
How come a site that is supposed to be about freedom don't regognise the freedom for individuals and organisations to make deals between each other out of free will?
Most/. users seems to think that freedom is about them having all the rights to take others work, freeloading, do whatever they want to, etc. And that the other parties don't even have the right to try to stop the freeloading.
Slashdot Mirror
Ofcause there is a market, but it's too small.
Insightful? You got yo be kidding?
"Secondly, the freedom to distribute the code, coupled with the zero copy cost, allows the end-user to share this overhead with those who have similar requirements. "
I really don't understand where you got the insane idea that the costs are in the distribuation of software? It isn't! The costs associated with software is in the PRODUCTION of it.
That is not my opinion, that is a fact.
I have sold quite some development support for different software throughout the years so I have experience (unlike most people here). There is not, by a long shot enough money in it to pay the bills. It is a shame that it is so, but it is.
"Moral: they may not buy the options, but they won't buy the basic package if you don't have options. "
This is my experience also. I didn't say that you shouldn't sell support, you MUST sell support if people are going to buy your products (as you say, people need to know that help exists if needed). Atleast with enterprise software this is the case. However, if you spend a couple of millions on developing a piece of software you got to make this back from the people who uses it, as simple as that.
"The FSF doesn't advocate never making money. "
No, but that is the RESULT of their suggested business model.
"that this is short term greed? "
Not going bancrypsy is short term greed?
You really should study some economics.
The problem is that the business models suggested by GNU and the open source movements are not in contact with reality.
"Only if your revenue depends on restricted distribution. "
Thats the only one that can make up a working business model. Sorry, but you just can't live on making for an example a office-suite and sell support for it. If you spend a couple of millions making a peice of software (beleive me, that isn't much) you got to get those money from its users. And they wont pay it for service&support. Like this guy said, they made totally about $200 on service&support. They would go bancrypsy in a snap. They only thing that makes companies like ximiam etc go around is venture capital. Then they run out of these they are finished.
"Sure. Alan Cox (alan@redhat.com) isn't a developer. "
Didn't you notice:
"...they are not developers (as their major business anyway). These people..." ?
They develop some software inhouse and they sponsor a few external project but that is just a fraction.
"Sometimes I wonder why people open their mouths about open source / free software when they quite clearly have never read either the OSI or FSF web pages. It's quite astounding."
I have ofcause read both but they don't present realistic business models. You can't live on the service&support model when you develop software. I would like that too, but it just isn't so.
"Providing the source to a customer is fine, and I agree with that, but they shouldn't be able to redistribute it (in my opinion). "
Do you have a good license that fits this description? I for one would be interrested in such a thing.
Couldn't agree more. Many Linux-companies will die as soon as the venture capital runs out because they really don't have any revenue.
I'm going to order some stuff from this company first thing on Monday.
And just to clarify:
1: Free as in speech gives free as in beer. If you allow unrestricted distribution you will loose your revenue.
2: No, Redhat is not an example of a working software development business model. Redhat lives on selling other peoples work (nothing wrong with that, they have choosen to give it away), they are not developers (as their major business anyway). These people are developers and must make a revenue on the products they develop.
The gnome people (eazel, ximiam etc) are burning money in a insainly rate, these people are not.
Sure, people want free stuff. Most people would want free cars and houses too if possible. The peoblem is that it's just not possible.
This company has a working business model. They are able to pay their bills and salaries. When the gnome-people run out of venture capital they are finished because they have no revenue. The service&support myth that GNU pushes so hard don't exist.
The only way for a company that produces something (for example software) to survive it to charge for it. If they don't, they will die.
What he said about service&support.
"have probably made about $200 doing it, "
I have said this a long time without anyone listening. The service&support business model DOES NOT EXISTS.
What we need on Linux is more companies like this. Companies that will survive in the long run (even after they run out of venture capital) with a sound business model giving us great usable software.
People buys cable.
I disagree with you. I think people wants everything for free if they can. They would want cars and houses for free also if they had the chance.
The point is that its just impossible to deliver anything for free. Thats just a fact of life.
Ok, sorry :)
"they're making use of the functionality of the GPL code"
There is no chance in hell that holds up in court.
Thats the general procedure.
To behave ethically you must always alert the wrongdoing part and then let them correct it anyway they want to.
Then if you have been harmed economically while the wrongdoing was taking place you can ask to be compensated for this. In this case the code was free so it's not the case here.
Take patents as an example. If someone is breaking your patent you must always let them fix that. You can't just sue the ass of them.
That is not morally defendable, maybe they did it by mistake or some other circumstances we don't know about.
Atlest this is the case in all western countries witch has similuar laws.
...they are forbidden to ship java, they lost the case against sun.
"When the tiny handful of parties who control such things "
It is abolutely clear that for our system to work there must be good competition. Thats why the DOJ is trying to break up microsoft. Pricefixing (witch is only possible in an environment with competiton problens) is a bad thing.
"Nor is the ability to "timeshift" your viewing by any other means; "
I agree that timeshifting should be ok. If the individual has paid for the content he or she should be allowed to view it whenever he/she wants to.
"Generally, what actually happens is that the creative talents are raped at gunpoint by those that control distribution channels. "
So you suggest that instead of private deals bewteen authors and distributors their work should be given away?
That would really help. When you download a mp3 you DO hurt the artist.
"Copy protection seeks to prevent the eventual enrichment of the public domain "
No, just like copyright it's there to make sure the authors can continue to do their job.
If you look back in history there has been archivements throughout history but the last 100 years has been absolutely unmatched. There are several reasons for this but IP laws are the most important one.
Some big archivements where made before IP laws was put in place but if you look at the last 100 years it has been an amazing development that is absolutely unmatched in history. To a big degree thanks to IP law.
That doesn't mean the IP owners should be allowed to do whatever they want to but have a right to make sure they are getting paid by the people who use it.
"Listen, no one here says that all IP should be free; "
Really? I guess you haven't read so many posts then.
"Simply put, lots of people can't imagine life without TV. They'll go pretty far with whatever scheme the industry invents before they give up and do something else with their time. "
So? They can buy it for whatever reason they want to. As long as noone is forcing people to pay I don't see any problem. That most people are paying, either because they want to watch, for social reason or some other reason thats quite irrelevant.
Isn't that up to the author and the corp to agree upon?
/. users seems to think that freedom is about them having all the rights to take others work, freeloading, do whatever they want to, etc. And that the other parties don't even have the right to try to stop the freeloading.
I don't think someone is holding a gun to either parties heads, do you?
How come a site that is supposed to be about freedom don't regognise the freedom for individuals and organisations to make deals between each other out of free will?
Most
What kind of one-way freedom is that?