This is an interesting article, though he is quite wrong. The business model for open source software companies is ridiculously simple, which is why so few people really understand it.
First of all, software, especially OSS, is not designed to be static and completed all at once for the first release, and we are a very long way from completely satisfying the demand of new and better software. Given this practically limitless need for new and improved software, not to mention the need for bug patching and support, there is obviously extensive, sustainable revenue available for such service, and I know at least Matthew Suzlik knows this. If your software is valuable, someone will pay you to maintain/develop it. Why did AT&T, a software _consumer_, commission UNIX and sponsor the development of the C and C++ programming languages? IBM pours millions of dollars into Linux because IBM has perpetual need for a new and better Linux, and they also know that if they don't pay for it, it is not guaranteed to be developed, at least not at the rate for which they can afford. Why does IBM do this even though all of their expensive work is up on display and available gratis at kernel.org? For that very reason. Many people intelligent enough to hack through it are capable of discovering or fixing problems unseen by IBM's commission. Therefore, IBM not only gets what they want by paying for it, but also garners gratis improvement and value from other, perhaps simmilar, parties. The gratis in free software flows both ways. Justin ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
