--- Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:02 PM 7/4/2003 -0700, you wrote: > >A better question is how do I get a piece of the > pie? > >For that, again, the answer is research. No one > likes > >to do it, but that's how you find where the money > went. > > You wander quite a bit in your response, ranging > from government funding to > a programmer itching a scratch, so I think you > missed my point. I'll try to > further clarify my thoughts and question through > another example. > > Assume consumers need a product that an open source > developer hasn't had > the itch to scratch. Knowing this, who pays for the > software to be created? > Under Will's concept that "software companies will > adopt free software and > earn their living by implementing it for people", a > single consumer, or if > we are lucky a group of consumers, pay the cost of > that implementation. > With this model the cost of the project is very high > for a small group of > people, whereas if you can spread the cost of > development across the entire > market the cost per-person is greatly reduced. This > is basic economics. > Whether commercial software is good or bad is > another matter. > > How can open source developers use this principle to > their advantage? > > The issue I see is that with open source you cannot > charge for the use of > the software by others. Therefore, as Will noted, > the cost in many > instances (but certainly not all or even possibly > most) will be that a > subset of potential users will bear the cost of > implementation. In this > contract-based software structure that subset of > users then has a high cost. > >
I did totally miss your point. Imagine that, Doug missed a point. I can see two versions of this problem: 1) The software exists in closed source, but not in open. 2) The software does not exist at all. In the fist case, The software in question (SIQ) exists in closed source somewhere. A consumer needs SIQ, but wants an Open Source version so they can modify it, or have it modified. In the second case, they have need that is unmet. It involves some research and communication. I guess they could start at Slashdot, and Source Forge and look for programmers willing to work on it. Or perhaps, they could try http://www.programmingbids.com/ Ultimately, the consumer will pay for the product. The question as I see it, is who own's it? I have no issue with commercial software. There are other ways of paying for development though. A lot of the development for Linux was done by people on staff at corporations. Ditto for Unix. This cost was spread over their entire product line. I suspect that Open Source will always lag behind the commercial sector in someways. As you said, basic economics. The commercial sector has an R&D component that is looking for itches to scratch. New product devolpment is a core to commercial interests. The central issue of the cost will be directly related to how large the consumer group is. There are a lot of computers out there, so an OS ought to be close to free. There are not a lot of Airports by comparison, so ground controll software is likely to remain expensive. This is as you said, directly related to the basic economics. There will always be a mixed model. There will be commercial software, Open Source, Closed source you will never be allowed to use, and variations in between. In the end, we the people fund all of it. ===== Warmest Regards, Doug Riddle http://www.dougriddle.com http://fossile-project.sourceforge.net/ http://www.libranet.com -- "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty Teeth." - George Washington -- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
