Hosting companies are perfect example of this... apache, sendmail, mysql, php, GNU/Linux, community support are all free.... yet hosting companies profit from Free software.
As for developers... if you have made a name for yourself, the chances are a company will employ you to administer systems using the software you've contributed to, or to use those skills elsewhere (see Ian Murdoch) On 11 May 2008, at 21:29, alan c wrote: > Matthew Wild wrote: >> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Thomas Ibbotson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> However, I am also in favour of credit being given where it's due, >>> and >>> allowing creators/inventors to profit from their work. If someone >>> has >>> put in the time and effort to create or improve something that other >>> people would like to use, surely they should be allowed to profit >>> from it. >>> >> >> Credit is always given, the original creators hold the copyright. >> They >> are also not stopped from profiting from it... >> >>> Now I know free software does not mean "free as in beer", so it is >>> perfectly possible for creators/inventors to profit from their >>> work by >>> charging a fee for it initially. However once it has been bought >>> by one >>> person, who is then free to distribute it and modify it, there is no >>> guarantee that the original creator can obtain anything further. >>> >> >> ...how they profit is another matter. >> >>> In his talk Richard mentions several ways that this could be >>> achieved >>> for free software. He mentions the fact that developers could >>> provide >>> support, at cost, for the software, much like canonical do for >>> ubuntu. >>> However this is not rewarding the original work, this is rewarding >>> the >>> additional effort of supporting the software, expended above and >>> beyond >>> the original effort to develop the software in the first place. >>> >> >> Actually Ubuntu was not wholly developed by Canonical. They used free >> software to build it, and this is where they gain (as everyone does) >> from making their software free (as in freedom). In effect I see it >> as: >> >> Loss >> * They potentially lost profit from direct sales of the product >> >> Gain >> * Fast development time (because they could use existing Free >> software) >> * No costs involved for using this tried, tested, external >> software in theirs >> * They benefit from a (potentially) unlimited number of developers, >> which they don't have to pay >> * They benefit in various ways from the community that builds around >> their project > > Community benefit: > I am very well motivated to help with things ubuntu, representing in > person, marketing, advocacy etc as almost a full time activity (I > have the time) entirely at my own cost. I may be a bit unusual but I > am skilled and as effective as I was when I was reasonably well paid > by a large water utility for a full time job. I have a passion rooting > for ubuntu and free software. What would happen if it became too > proprietary? This passion would quickly evaporate. My imagined > replacement would be expensive, maybe with less motivation. I would > probably be lost as a customer too, and all my influenced contacts. > That is a big downtrade I think. > I do understand about wanting payment for programming work, (which > could of course be software libre any way?) but some large old style > companies are finding things may not be going their way. > -- > alan cocks > Kubuntu user#10391 > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/ -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/