ZDNet is running something unusual -- an intelligent, well-reasoned response to an article by RMS. Usually RMS gets no response at all, or FUD -- so it's interesting to see another point of view.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5137217.html
On the contrary, he's missed the point:
"Stallman’s encouragement to replace proprietary software with free alternatives would complicate matters for makers of open source software, as it would remove one of the few areas from which open source software generates revenue: licensing the code to makers of proprietary software."
This statement has several problems with it, most obviously the paradox at the end about generating revenue by licensing open source code. What? Huh? It's Open Source, you can ask someone to pay you for it, but if it's open source they don't have to. I doubt I'd make much money if I tried to license Linux to IBM. SCOh wait, I guess some people do that, but it isn't a revenue stream for open source developers.
Then if we assume that he meant that selling software was what open source developers do with their day jobs he's missed the point there too. Most developers develope in-house code that is too specific to their employers needs to be of use to anyone outside their company.
"Music companies, however, are finding it harder to make a buck in the music business."
Wouldn't that be more because they aren't producing music that people with money want to listen to? If I want to sell music for money I should sell it to people older than 16.
"They can charge for support, but that is a SEPARATE service unrelated to the base product (you can have a support contract for Windows, too)."
Revenue from retail and OEM sales of software: small Revenue from support services and customizations: HUGE
Again he's missing a point about the target audience, If you want to make lots of money you've got to find someone who has some and provide them with something that's worth that much.
"GPL software is NOT, however, a great generator of revenue."
Finally, he get's something right! It isn't! The services that people need to make it fit their business needs IS.
I'm no advocate of piracy, but if you think about it the idea of charging for bits is really artificial, while the idea of charging for services is unavoidably natural. Open Source will force many companies into a service business model that will prove to work just as well for them as selling bits ever did.
Besides, when RMS says, "Free software does not mean 'gratis'," he just means that that's not what it /means/. He doesn't mean that it can't generate revenue, or shouldn't, just that that's not his point. Argueing about whether or not it can or does generate revenue is entirely beside the point (his point anyway).
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a Stallman desciple and I hope I never will be, but if you must disagree with him, please at least understand him first.
-- Andrew Jorgensen
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
