On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Carsten Agger <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 12/17/2016 08:29 PM, Charles Cossé wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Daniel Pocock < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> If you own an apartment in a building with elevators, you have to pay >> service charges to the company that maintains it. >> >> With all due respect, where's the motivation for the poor bugger who > writes the free software? I believe that there is still something missing > from this equation. > > > The software developer would normally be paid by the hour to produce free > software for industrial use. > That just translates to "the company giving-away their own motivation / competetive advantage", does it not? I'm all about free software, and paying to develop free software is a step in the right direction, but still ... the likelihood that the software would even benefit another elevator manufacturer seems unrealistic ... and thus cluttering-up fsf software archives with useless elevator software ... I know, there should be open standards for it ... but c'mon :) > > That's what my company does, anyway, even if we don't make software for > elevators or embedded systems in general. > > > So it's okay to pay the company to maintain the elevator but not the > software developer? Where's the motivation for the software developer? > > > ... to maintain the elevator, and as part of that, the software. The > developer's motivation would be the paycheck. Payment by invoiceable hours > is a standard business model for free software developers. Support > contracts are too. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > >
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
