Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software)

[Angel \"Java\" Lopez]

> >
> > I believe that fitzix misspoke; what I think he meant is, that it is a
> > natural *property* of bits and bytes to be copied with incredible ease.
> > Any restriction of such is "artificial scarcity", i.e., bad for everyone
> > else.

Hmmm..... "natural property" ?.... In point of view, it is not the function
and essence of a software program. In other perspective, my private
documents or digital photos, are not for be copied....

> > Yes, but it (control of software usage by the author) is unethical. My
> > intention in using software is not to give the software author control
> > over my life.

For me, it is not unethical. It is a choice of the author. And now, with
Free Software, it is a choice of the user, to accept the author software or
reject it in complete. It is unethical to obtain a software in a way
contrary to author rights (this is my point of view). And in general, the
control of software usage by the author, it's only to prevent the
simultaneous multiple use, but nothing else.... It's not an Orwellian
control.... ;-)

> > > But, in the Open Source, who pays the bill??
> >
> > Anyone who has an interest in the continued production of Free Software.

Who pays MY bills.... ;-)

I think:

- Free Software is great

- In the long term, Free Software will kill any enterprise that its main
income is from selling license-based software multiple times (except if the
income is for the package and distribution). Other incomes to analize:
printed documentation, installation, support, training, consulting....
Anyone thinking to make a software enterprise, will need to follow this
pattern....

- As a professional programmer, my options will be:
    - Work to or build a free software enterprise, like above.
    - A company (like Boeing or the Uncle Sam) that needs implements
one-time system (a particular system)
    - A company that sells "one-time system" (a turn-key system).

> Yep - in fact, almost nobody actually pays for baseline
> non-differentiated architectural work.  Almost all libraries,
> frameworks, and base level systems are available at low cost to the
> masses.  For instance: the .Net framework for MS windows is freely
> downloadable.  Now, who exactly pays Microsoft's bills?

The OS licences (low cost or not), deals for OS licences to PC makers, the
servers (Exchange, SQL Server, BizTalk.... ) licences, development tools
(VS7, VS.Net), home software (Encarta, Age of Empires...) pays Microsoft's
bills.

>
> (And, from a certain analysis, MS isn't even profitable.  So, all is not
> equal and proprietary software is not inherently profitable)

Ooopss.... which analysis?

Angel "Java" Lopez