The basic idea about Free and Open Source Software is that once the writing of the code is done, and the developer paid, the software should be free. It has been paid for.
Yes, you can make a shitload of money if you ask a fee for every copy, but that is just traiding air. The price you ask is, once the code has been paid for, completely random and does not cover the actual value of the software, but an arbitrary figure. Paid code should be free. That is why Richard Stallman write the GPL initially. And once its free, everybody can download it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And the smart people who do, and get stuck, go to one of the open forums and find an anwser. They might even answer a few questions here and there themselves, or write a blog on how they did something. All that is part of the opensource community. All that has value. But if people want to just use free software for free, that is just as good. On this continent, where money is not really available in large quantities (unless you have your fingers in the cookie jar), opensource is really the only viable option. my 0 cents :-) On Tuesday 05 February 2008 19:57:19 P. A. Bagyenda wrote: > You're right no doubt, and summarise well all the standard material. > My point is that for each Joomla, there are thousands others who > really didn't get past Go. And I suspect Joomla would have made more > money if their software were closed source. So the hype needs > subjecting to a couple of reality checks. Open Source (sadly) > encourages a huge amount of free-loading. Which would be OK if there > were enough momentum in the movement... I'm saying a certain > slackening is discernible. (Yes, I've been around long enough to know!) > > Still, the PostgreSQL guys have shown they still have SERIOUS > momentum. Even without a business model to worry about. > > P. > > Ps. As for UB41, the only important question is whether to go for the > 25k or 120k tickets. My experience with MTN-organised shindigs like > this is that it is more efficient to go with the former, add to that > the odd 5k greaser for the guard to get your date a chair! > > > On Feb 05, 2008, at 19:11, Reinier Battenberg wrote: > > > > > The business model works best for companies who need to opensource > > tools. So, > > Yahoo will contribute to freebsd, google to python, mountbatten to > > Joomla! > > (just to name a few random samples ;-) > > > > The Joomla! foundation is a not for profit, however, they have > > created one of > > the most popular CMS systems in the world. So, there is no > > businessmodel for > > Joomla! Inc, as it is just non-existent. > > > > There is a business model for all the individuals working on the > > core. I guess > > their consultancy fees are just slightly higher than the ones paid > > in the > > Kampala market. > > > > They bring their toolbox (Joomla) to a job, and start hacking a > > website. Who > > would do better than they do? So, they get the highest fee. And in > > the time > > that they are not flying across the globe presenting Joomla! 1.5, they > > actually write code. Sounds like a nice individual business model to > > me. > > > > The business models for companies with an opensource package is a > > bit similar. > > Who would you want to buy service of? Canonical, MySQL, eh, Sun, > > Alfresco, > > etc. It seems to be worth something to be the maintainer of a big > > open source > > project. > > > > Where the opensource market is definitly weaker is in niches, like > > yours. > > Where specialized software is required, opensource doesnt seem to > > get a real > > foothold. Wether that be ERP, SMSC's or other small markets, it > > seems much > > harder. Apparently open source needs volume. > > > > my 2 cents. > > > > > > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 13:03:05 P. A. Bagyenda wrote: > >> Bait no doubt :-) > >> > >> My 'issues' are different. Apart from business models being few and > >> successes, in truth, even fewer, there is the small matter of the > >> largely non-existent community participation that is trumpeted as one > >> of the key advantages of Open Source. What is the magnitude in real > >> terms? I mean what percentage of 'participants' in these projects > >> really add value? That to me is one of the biggest disappointments. > >> That the vast majority, even when they could do otherwise, are > >> content > >> to merely consume. I don't see any new Linuxes, or GCCs, or VIs, or > >> Mozillas... Surely it can't be that we've run tools to (re-)create as > >> open source, can it? > >> > >> Time to get off the high horse. PostgreSQL benchmarks: very > >> interesting. > >> > >> > >> P. > >> > >> On Feb 05, 2008, at 11:05, Ernest - (AfriNIC) wrote: > >> > >>> P. A. Bagyenda wrote thus on 2/5/08 11:02 AM: > >>>> > >>>> Just when one is starting to lose one's faith in this > >>>> whole Open Source religion > >>> > >>> Why lose interest? Open-source is becoming a perfectly lucrative > >>> business. > >>> > >> > >> > >>> Hatch an idea, get the community involved to perfect it, sell it for > >>> billions of USD to the competition and go buy yourself a villa in > >>> hawaai. > >>> > >>> Try it with your butterfly, parlix and zorilla - you may never need > >>> to code again Paul ;) ! > >>> > >>> eb > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> LUG mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug > >>> %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > >>> > >>> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them > >>> (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible > >>> for them in any way. > >>> --------------------------------------- > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LUG mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug > >> %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > >> > >> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them > >> (including > > attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in > > any way. > >> --------------------------------------- > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > rgds, > > > > Reinier Battenberg > > Director > > Mountbatten Ltd. > > +256 782 801 749 > > www.mountbatten.net > > _______________________________________________ > > LUG mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug > > %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > > > > The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them > > (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible > > for them in any way. > > --------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > LUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug > %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > > The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. > --------------------------------------- > > -- rgds, Reinier Battenberg Director Mountbatten Ltd. +256 782 801 749 www.mountbatten.net _______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
