Re: Mostly free software...
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 08:51:16PM -0600, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> David Welton wrote:
>
> > [ another email that should be on debian-discuss ]
>
> Debian-discuss it is. I've added them to the cc: line; please remove
> debian-devel for your followups.
Heh, sorry about that, I didn't mean to fool anyone, I just think that
we ought to have a debian-discuss, instead of banning everyone from
-devel, as a means of reducing noise on -devel. This thread, for
instance, has been interesting for me, but it has no technical value.
> > > But that isn't causing anyone harm. Many of RMS's writings
> > > explain why this is so. In short: the people getting freebies
> > > weren't going to pay _you_ anyway. In fact, they might never
> > > have used any kind of similar product if it hadn't been free.
> > Good, if I am a company (which is the point of view that you are
> > writing from, right?), it would be *good* if my competitors dont'
> > use as high a quality software as I do.
> Only problem: it won't be as high quality if they aren't using it.
> The choice here isn't between high-quality proprietary software and
> high-quality free software; it's between high-quality free software
> and lower-quality proprietary software. You have to participate in
> the community to benefit from it.
Nonsense, that's a false dichotomy. There is plenty of high quality
non-free software. Sure, it would probably be higher quality were it
free, but most businesses won't sacrifice millions of dollars for what
may be a small increase in quality, depending on how much resources
they are already throwing at it.
> Think about this, too: if your competitors use it, they'll likely
> improve it in ways you haven't thought of. When they redistribute
> their changes, you get to use it. In effect, they get to benefit
> from you for free, but you also get to benefit from them for free.
No, I spent zillions (some hypothetical 'lot of money') developing my
product. In comparison, they aren't likely to put so much into it.
> Finally, there's the bragging rights: "My software is so good, even
> my competitors rely on it."
That's a pretty good argument, in some situations. It says that you
are the best in the field, and that's a pretty good reason for clients
to deal with you.
> [Is it just me, or does all this sound just a little too mercenary?]
Not really, that seems to be how companies operate. If we want them
to play the game, we have to understand their rules, as they do ours.
I personally think that free software is *right*, but, under the
current system, I'm not sure that it is economically advantageous in
all cases. That's all I'm really playing devil's advocate for...
> > > That means you're helping yourself, by getting useful software,
> > > helping a developer, by paying him, and helping another company,
> > > by providing useful software.
> > Umm, I don't *want* to help my competitors. Maybe, if it's not a
> > core product, it won't be that important, but, if I spend a lot of
> > money and time paying someone to develop really nice code, from
> > scratch, that is central to my business, I'll be damned if I'll
> > hand it over to the competition for free.
> Well, that's your choice. If you want to hoard it all to yourself,
> be our guest.
> The problem is that (if it's a big deal) someone, somewhere is
> likely to write a free equivalent. Because it's free, it benefits
> from all its user/developers, and becomes better than yours.
Maybe. It takes time, though... Databases are as big a deal as
operating systems, and we only have one free one, which doesn't seem
to be as heavy duty as the big proprietary ones.
> Eventually, even you will likely be using it, and your competitor
> (who sponsored its development) will have an ad for his company on
> your hard drives, not you on his. Worst yet, all that money you
> spent will be down the drain, instead of continuing to earn you
> publicity, good will, and technical reputation.
Like I suggested previously, maybe it makes sense for companies to
free code when it looks like there will be diminishing returns, caused
by increased competition in the niche.
Ciao,
--
David N. Welton | Fortune rota volvitur - descendo minoratus
davidw@prosa.it | alter in altum tollitur - nimis exaltatus
http://www.efn.org/~davidw | rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!
www.debian.org - www.prosa.it | nam sub axe legimus - Hecubam reginam
Reply to: