Elan,
> There appears to be a misunderstanding as to what OpenSource software
> means. OpenSource is a business model. OpenSource software may be
> commercial software or software released to the public domain.
Hear Hear!
There was a time when almost all software was "open source". However, in
those days, one was simply renting the usage of that software from the
vendor, and typically had to pay a monthly or yearly licensing fee. On
the other hand, the source was there - you might not have been free to
change it or distribute changes to it though.
Even today, if you read end user license agreements (EULAs) carefully, I
think you will find that you don't _own_ the software, you own the right
to operate it. This is a careful distinction.
> Free software - as defined by the FSF and now referred to as Open Source
> software, which I believe is typically linked to FSF's GNU Copyleft version
> 2 upwards - has never been about not having to pay for software. "Free" has
> always meant that the provider publishes the source code to the software,
On the other hand - are sections of the FSF that advocates
that due to the minimal costs of reproduction, if you decide to duplicate
and redistribute said software you can do so, giving copies of the
software to your friends and family to use as they will - for free. I am
not one of those people.
> license continues to be valid - to a degree - for software that is
> derivative work of software distributed under the Copyleft license. (read it)
Also from the FSF:
``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
1 The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
2 The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1).
3 The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
4 The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you
should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone
anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that
you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
So to put it short - the movement "free software" != the movement "open
source". Open Source is a limited subset of Free Software in that in
order for software to be Free, it must also be Open Source.
The biggest problem for this model, is for companies who expect to make
money off their software. While the cost of production may not be that
high - there is a lot of R&D that goes into software production 10
Software Engineers yearly salaries is not a small amount of money. Say
for arguments sake it's $750,000.00 (some are senior, others not so
senior). At the end of the year, the company puts out a product, and
charges $59.95 a copy. They have to sell 12,511 copies of the software to
recoup just what they have spent in wages. We're not even talking about
rental of office space, equipment costs, etc.
Now - throw into the equation "Free Software" (not to be confused with
Open Source) as applied to say a 1st commercial version. If just one
person buys the software, he or she can then redistribute it, free of
charge, (or charge a duplication fee) with nary a nod to the parent
company that originally produced it. That company won't make any money -
they certainly won't be able to continue operation for any real length of
time.
If there is one thing I have learned - "People are without concience in
terms of money." If you are depending on peoples good will to keep you
afloat - in that they might say, "Gee that was some really good software
that I copied off my buddy, I should really send the company some money
and get and _official_ copy." you can forget about it.
Or another way to think about it. Say you've made a pretty cool utility
that creates web graphics. Every web firm downloads it, and their
designers use it frequently to create graphics, and they sell a lot of
sites based on the graphics that were created using this tool. Isn't the
creator of the tool entitled to some recompense? Without the tool, the
graphics might not have been as appealing, and thus the web firm would
have made less money. Just like a hammer. You pay for a hammer to build
a house. Admittedly it's not a lot of money, but in essence that's the
tool manufacturer getting their piece based on the profit you may
accumulate off the purchase of that hammer. While one may argue that
software is infinitely easier to reproduce than a hammer, you all know for
a fact that the development of that software is far more difficult than
designing a hammer.
Thus the analysis of cost of production of software based on pure
manufacturing cost may result in the concept that software should be
pretty much free. However, that analysis ignores the R&D required, the
possible support costs associated with, the possibility of a limited
number of upgrades and fixes to the product, and the intangible of profit
generated by works derived from the usage of that software.
While I support Open Source (it too is fraught with danger, as people have
no respect - again coming back to no consience in terms of money - and
will steal from you), I can't say that Free Software is the way to go for
everyone. I certainly wouldn't say it's the way to go for Rebol -
especially not at this early stage.
- Porter Woodward
