Re: some points valid but...
> I think that some of the points made are
> valid. It is true that developers
> deserve to be compensated for their
> You have stretched Stallman's comments
> regarding the need to charge money for
> OSS to the limit to make your point.
> There is a BIG difference between
> charging money for a CD collection of
> software and a publishing house that
> tries to collect royalties. I think RMS
> would object to such a thing and I
> certain do because it will hinder the
> OSS movement.
> One of the reasons why free software
> is popular is because it is usually also
> free in the economic sense. Furthermore
> there is already a system setup for
> developers who want to be compensated...
> its called shareware. Now I know
> shareware is based on the honor system
> but it does work quite well for many
> Finally it would be realy hard to
> setup a royalty system for OSS software
> projects. Lets say you publish some
> software and start to collect royalties.
> Then I "buy" your code and
> modify or embed it to make a new
> project. When someone "buys"
> my code (which includes yours) how do we
> figure out the royalties? Would I have
> to charge more for my stuff so I can
> cover the cost of paying you a royalty?
> Now imaging trying to solve this same
> problem for projects that start off with
> hundreds of programmers and spawn
> derivative projects with hundreds of
> more developers. Now how do you
> distribute royalties? Maybe you'll
> answer "those projects do get
> royalties because they are too
> big". But thats not fair is it?
> The developers for these projects have
> worked just as hard and deserve
> compensation just as much.
> In short... there is a place for
> everything. If you want compensation as
> a developer then you should charge for
> your code. You can make it a comercial
> product or it can be shareware. If you
> want to give away the source code then
> you just have to accept the fact that
> others will use your stuff to their
> advantage; probably without compensating
> you. If that bothers you then don't
> give away your source code... you
> wouldn't be the first to distribute
> stuff in binary only format.
> What you want is to have your cake and
> eat it too. And yeah I understand the
> desire but the reality of the situation
> is that OSS projects will probably
> always be free in every sense of the
> word. You want compensation but
> understand that when people shell out
> their hard earned dollars they expect
> more in return than most OSS developers
> are willing to give. Are you gonna
> provide support for you projects?
> Update cycles that are responsive to
> users desires? If you want to do all
> that then I say go for it !! But if you
> still want to give the code away then
> don't whine when someone else uses your
> stuff to make a buck as well. Your
> publishing house example is a little
> flawed. Authors don't "give"
> their works away to anyone in general
> and they don't allow derivative works
> without negotiated contracts. When an
> author does put something into the
> public domain they voluntarily give up
> the right to keep others from using
> their stuff and making derivative works.
> Guess what... same thing with developers
> Overall the system works as is. Lots
> of people put code into the collective
> pot and lots of people take out. Those
> that take but don't give are still
> making some positive impact because of
> the "media" exposure of having
> someone base their business/project on
> OSS code. I think most people are
> willing to give back although everyone
> doesn't have to give back in the same
> way (ie: code).
Very good response. You are right on. Thanks a lot for the comment!