Ransom is good. It allows the potential users of the software to not have to cooperate.
I read somewhere that the majority of software, at least 80% IIRC, is written for in-house use. A lot of this is software that could be shared in terms of both use and development, saving money for everyone who wants to use it, and improving the quality. If more people would open source their software and share the changes they make to it, a lot of work would not have to be repeated. All software in general could be at a higher level by now if this had been going on more already.. -Tim On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 09:32, John Hebert wrote: > The answer is the Ransom model. > > Look at how the source code for Blender was paid for and released: > > http://www.blender.org/bf/ > > Though you may have to dig for the historical methods. > > John Hebert > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dustin Puryear > To: [email protected] > Sent: 7/8/03 7:46 AM > Subject: Re: [brlug-general] free, closed and practical software. > > At 02:30 PM 7/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: > > > 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. > > > ... > > > > > > How can open source developers use this principle to their > advantage? > > > > > > >The biggest advantage to free software today is the large code base. A > > >company like Spyglass may have to start from scratch or close to it, > but a > >free software developer has much of the groundwork covered. Costs for > >mundane applications are eliminated. If someone wants a text editor, > you > >simply figure out which one they would most like. Complicated projects > > >can be broken down into a series of mundane ones and strung together > with > >a unique chunk. > > This has been done since the 70's. > > >If I were trying to do things the Microsoft way, I'd have to find > owners > >of software like I want and pay them all a fee or purchase them or do > it > >from scratch. My costs would be much higher and I'd be subject to the > >whims of those owners. > > > >As a free developer, I can put the system together at no cost besides > my > >time. If what I put together was worth using, I could get paid to put > it > >in place. What I charge would be mostly for hardware used and > development > >time. Sure, others would > > Exactly! > > So someone pays for your development time. Who? A single client? If it > takes you or a team of developers several months or more to develop > software that could conceivable be mass-marketed then there is an > inefficiency here. A single client is paying for something that a larger > > base of clients would be willing to pay for. > > So how do we solve this problem? > > This question just keeps coming up. Everyone keeps trying to argue the > merits of open source software. That's not my question. > > > --- > Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Puryear Information Technology, LLC <http://www.puryear-it.com> > Providing expertise in the management, integration, and > security of Windows and UNIX systems, networks, and applications. > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
