Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 10/03/2013 02:56 PM:
For software, if one has immediate, tight loop expectations, it is close to already having it. But normally there are a bunch of unstated or unknown expectations that where the payer just wants to inherit the best practice (assuming there is such a thing). I think they often do _not_ know what those practices are, or _really_ what they want. They just want the `best' thing. So, in the more-money-then-brains or more-money-than-time, they want some authority (or someone holding IP) to essentially tell them what they want and be on their team. This is appealing to people that have resources (esp. unaccountable resources) because it makes them feel like they know or control something because they bought something. They may define "free" as worthless because they are only instrumental via capital. (I recognize it may be useful to just spend money and see the broad outlines of the state-of-the-art, and then go back and actually learn about the apparently interesting or relevant bits.)
Sorry, I couldn't find a way to trim down your text without sacrificing the gist. Yes, in software a purchase usually (>50%) is accompanied by tight expectations. But even when, say, buying a pinwheel in Chinatown or a US flag at a big parade, if it's handed to you for free, it can take you awhile to really determine whether it's worthless or if there's some joy hidden somewhere inside. (E.g. I recently picked up a free flash drive at a conference with the intention of erasing the marketing crap on it and giving it to Renee' for her homework. But, luckily, I perused the content first and found a gem of a paper on Goedel's incompleteness theorems buried inside.) Contrast that with a pinwheel or US flag that you have to spend, say, $1 for. Your "what am I really buying" mode kicks in and you tighten up the loop quicker than if someone just hands it to you for free. My point was not to talk about hypothetical people who identify "free" with worthless or the more-money-than-brains types. It was to talk about people who use "free" strategically in order to leverage other assets. Google is a great example. Redhat is another, different, example. Oracle is yet another different example. The first two are (I think) largely well intentioned or at least incompetent actors. The latter often strikes me as a bad actor ... but nowhere near the likes of the open access journals targeted in the article. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Somewhere, nowhere all
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
