Re: [MacPerl] Distributables?

["Raffael Cavallaro" <raffael@mediaone.net>]

>From: Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com>

> I think that the overwhelming number of options out
> there makes it easy to find something else that does what your software
> does, and if yours is limited, then people will find something else that
> isn't.

If you're software does something that some other piece of software that's
free does, then no one will *ever* buy it. This is the reductio ad absurdum
case.

I'm talking about software that does something that other software does not
do, either in terms of functionality, ease of use, or polish. Such shareware
is out there, and much of it is wisely protected or restricted in some way.

#define OPEN_SOURCE_RANT

Contrary to one correspondent's sig line, information doesn't want to be
free. It doesn't want to be anything. If you make your living as a
consultant-programmer(i.e., you get paid for programming), then you want
information to be free, because when all software is free, then consultants
are valuable (anything is valuable relative to that which is free). But when
much useful software is copyrighted and expensive, then software is
valuable, and consultant-programmers are a dime a dozen.

Now, personally, I favor the open source, free software, free information
model. It's more egalitarian, it makes life easier for a much greater number
of people, and it doesn't concentrate great wealth in the hands of a very
few. However, I'm also realistic enough to see that the altruistic model
only works if everyone abides by it.

1. As soon as one firm decides to go the intellectual property route, the
free information model begins to crumble, because the proprietary guys know
what you're up to and can capitalize on it if they need to, but you can't
legally use their stuff. Remember, the law is on their side, not yours,
because the law is about protecting private property, and will award them
monetary damages much more readily than it will compensate you for their
using open source code that is free anyway.

2. They have a steady revenue stream from upgrades, but you only get
maintenance work on a less buggy open source product that probably needs
less support. To a certain extent, the worse your software is, the more
profitable it is.

3. People can openly copy and use your work without paying you, but they can
only use proprietary stuff if they pay for it, or are willing to risk be
subjected to legal action based on license audits. Which are they more
likely to pay for?

Unfortunately,the story of the last two decades is how the
copyright/intellectual property business model won out over the free
software, consultant model. If you have any doubt, compare the salaries of a
top Microserf and a top consultant. The former is a millionaire who goes to
work because he *wants to* and the latter goes to work because he *has to*.

#undef OPEN_SOURCE_RANT




raf


***** Want to unsubscribe from this list?
***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch