> 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. > > 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.
This is the 'pie is only so big' idea. What I've seen actually happen as a result of open source work is a creation of new markets in which people can make money. Perhaps it is tougher money to earn than proprietary software, but the market is going to head in that direction whether you and I want it to or not. My commoditization of software argument hinges on: 1) There're always a few people willing to do at least a half-assed implementation of an idea as an open source 2) The rise of the internet has made it trivial for these people to start collaborating, whereas before it would have been impossible. 3) The rise of the internet has allowed proprietary software to be developed on the cheap in third world markets. IMHO, the 'free as in beer' part of open source software is caused by the cheapening of the development process as a result of the new facts in the software industry (largely the internet). This is driving the 'value' of software as a finished product towards zero, whether a group of proprietary developers want it or not. What's going to happen is you and I are going to make little proprietary products using these OS components. We'll make money from those pieces, and then at some point, an OS solution will come in and take over.... and we'll move on to the next great product. There's no lack of new software to be written out there. Yes... this will royally fuck over businesses which expect continued absurd returns on an initial software development investment. But this investment is becoming cheaper, for the reasons stated above.... in the end.. hopefully this tragic business of 50% margins and higher will go away... and a healthier, longer-term business will replace it.. > > Tim's argument: > OpenSource -> Good for you. I have more books to publish. > OpenSource -> Bad for me. Takes the margins out my business. > > Doesn't sound too convincing. > > I think Jeff is doing the right thing. Leverage other people's work and > make a business out of it. The question I must ask as a developer is: Do > I want other smart business people like Jeff leveraging my work? > > Maybe the real question is: > > Is there any value left in engineering and innovation, or does it all go > to the marketing engines? 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RLUG mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
