[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you get on the OOo development lists you'll realize that it is not > Open Source in the traditional sense. Almost all the developers work > for Sun.
WHat is "the traditional sense"? IBM pays it's Linux kernel hackers a salary to write code they will never, ever sell, so it can't be working for a corporation that's non-traditional. The GNU team is actually closer to a "cathedral"-style development model than anything else, so obviously OSS doesn't require a bazaar development method. Also, IIRC, Sun's OOo license, like Apple's Public Source License, gives Sun/Apple the exclusive right to do anything at all generally useful with the code, which is actually one strike against Raymond, as these are considered "Open Source licenses", without any real benefit. > Raymond makes some good points. I agree with a lot of what he says as he > is a Libertarian, to Stallman's Socialism (Stallmanism?). With that said > both Raymond and Stallman have failed to start any business themselves > using the models they propose. To me this says a lot. In this industry > there are two types of people. Talkers and Doers. Raymond I feel falls > solidly in the talker camp, although he talks a good talk. Stallman has the FSF, in which he fills various positions, and most likely draws a salary from. Raymond likewise travels and makes speeches to many groups and companies, for which he also presumably receives a real, if only nominal fee. (If my opinions are of any value whatsoever, I think Raymond just prefers being in the public eye to being rich.) > O'rielly is a great company. I have a ton of their books. They have done > a significant amount for the Open Source community. Yet Tim doesn't open > source all his books. Why? Because he knows that a new company would open > up overnight and take all the margins out his business. They would do > nothing but print and bind. O'rielly would assume all other costs. The > "Definitive Guide to HTTP" would cost $5 instead of $40. Everyone would > use it to show how great Open Source is, except Tim, who would be laying > off staff, and putting his house on the market, and not publishing the > great books that I use everyday. > > Tim's argument: > OpenSource -> Good for you. I have more books to publish. > OpenSource -> Bad for me. Takes the margins out my business. For anyone skimming this thread, that's Tim O'Reilly that Chris is paraphrasing. Not me. It confused me for a second. :) > If it is the latter it is a sad day for me as a engineer who loves > developing innovative software, and getting paid to do so. Do you love to develop it? Or do you love to sell it? That is the difference between "manufacturing" and "service" as Raymond lays it out. If you write a program that can run forever and never needs to be stopped, changed, modified, patched, or improved, then yeah, you can make a pretty good run of selling your software. This has been done. Otherwise, any of these acts constitute "service" and will most likely have to be none more than once or twice. In this case, you'll have a harder time "manufacturing" a one-time product. In all honesty, the big ISVs already know this. Why do you think they offer "upgrades" at a lower cost than the standard product? If I go down to Sears and tell the cashier, "Well, I already own a Kenmore refrigerator. Can I get half off?" The same goes for clothes, housewares, power saws, or books. More and more software, especially user software like KDE or Mozilla, will always require upgrades, improvements, and patches. There *are* exceptions, but they are increasingly few. Tim _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
