On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Thomas Muhr - Scientific Software Development wrote:
> At 14:47 10.07.99 +0300, you wrote:
>
> >There exist many companies and private entrepreneurs, that sell support and
> >consultation for free software. For example Richard M. Stallman, founder of
> >of Free Software Foundationi, codes only free software but he does not
> >starve at all. Here is citation from one interview (BYTE July 1986):
> >
> >(citation starts)
> >
> >BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living.
> >
> >Stallman: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right
> >to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making
> >my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that
>
> Usually, someone is doing the programming, someone else is doing the
> consultation. Of course, if you want to do everything yourself....
Therefore it might be good idea to create company, so programmers can
concentrate on programming and others can do the marketing, consulting,
documenting etc.
> Lets transfer this idea to other domains:
> Q: so you are giving the bread/car away, how do you keep the bakery/car
> factory running, then?
> A: we will be selling the butter/gasoline
Your idea is not transferrable to other domains. If you take some material
thing, like bread and give it away for free to as many peole as possible,
you must slice it to so tiny little pieces that they are not very useful.
But if you take some abstract thing like software, you can make infinite
amount of copies of that, without slicing it to smaller pieces.
> Well, some else could eventually make a better software product, but there
> is some protection via copyright at least.
Reinventing the wheel is stupid. If some free program is good enough
already, there is no need to create new software for same purpose. If
it is not, anybody who can program, can make enhancements to that
software and send them as patches to maintainer of original software,
so he can add them to that software.
But sometimes some program is fundamentally so brain-dead by design, that
enhancing it so that it would be good enough, would equal to re-writing the
whole program. In that case it is rational to create new software.
In most cases it is possible to use code-base of existing free software,
when creating new free software. It is much easier to stand on someones
shoulders than trying to reach for the sky from ground. As I said,
reinventing the wheel is stupid.
> Another problem is the actual and potential
> user base. Qualitative research is still a niche market for software
> developers and you cannot compare it to a target market using general
> purpose utilities (on-screen cd-player etc) or base products like complete
> operating systems.
In most most cases programmer don't need to care about things like making
business, when he starts free software project. For example kernel of
Linux started as a hobby of Linus Benedict Torvalds. But then more and
more programmers came with that project. And the rest is
history. Some of them do it as their hobby and/or during their free time
but for example Alan Cox codes kernel of Linux as a programmer in Red
Hat Software.
I think, it would be possible to create free software as some
project in university. Both students and scientists around the world
would have possibility to join development of that software. Some department
of university would provide material structure (computers with www- ftp- and
cvs-serversoftware and bug tracking-system connected to Internet) for
that project. That project would need donations and for handling of such
donations some non-profit organization is needed. That
non-profit-organization could collect funding also by selling printed
documentation for that program.
As far as I know, those companies, that are founded for supporting of
some free software, are for some software, that is mature enough. I mean:
first comes some software, and when it is mature enough, somebody starts
making business with it. In most cases original creator of that software
establish that support company.
There is at least one exception I know: Abisoft. That company was founded to
create new free (GPL'd) word processor (and office suite) from scratch.
http://www.abisource.com/
Of course there exist programs, that needs no support company. All they
need is being a part of CD-ROM-distributions and being available via
Internet.
> There is also a big difference
> in coping with technical complexity between a potential user based with
> high technical skills and "normal" people like social scientist who simply
> want to do their work.
That is one reason, why I'd like to make my program compliant with Gnome.
And I hope, that there would exist more companies selling computers with
preinstalled and preconfigured Linux.
Some of you may have been disposed to FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt),
that claims, that Linux must be configured everyday. That is not true. "If
it works, don't fix it". :-)
> However, one "open strategy" which would make life easier for all involved
> would be to pursue open data interfaces, so that existing and future
> software (commercial or free) can easily access existing data/projects etc.
> (Did I mention XML before?-)
That is brilliant idea. Open and common file formats, protocols, interfaces,
standards etc. is Good Thing(tm).
For example file format of M$ Word is just proprietary "standard" and
it changes between versions of Word without forewarnings. Open
standards like XML and SGML are created together with different people
from different organizations. Everybody has equal possibility to create
products that follows those standards.
-- Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen * U of Jyväskylä * [log in to unmask] --
-- http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/ * * " STRAIGHT BUT NOT NARROW ! " --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
" Prince esta muerto. Prince esta muerto. Que viva para siempre el
Poder de la Nueva Generacion. " O(+>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
