🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8078@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:
>   To have a software shop that will make me a living, I have to have
>   (at a minimum) space, a computer, development software, utilities,
>   and money to pay the bills to produce the product that will pay the
>   bills in the future (or invest personal time away from family and
>   friends after working a full time job).

But to sell the software to twice as many people you don't need twice as
much space, two computers, etc.  So why do you need to receive twice as
much money if twice as many people want to use the software?  Where is the
unit cost that justifies the unit price?

>   To expect that the only right choice is for me to then GIVE AWAY
>   that software is patently ridiculous, IMO. If Richard Stallman,
>   or anyone else, chooses to do so, that's fine. To state that it's
>   immoral for someone else NOT to do so (and RMS has done just that)
>   is somewhere between ludicrous and immoral.

Well, Stallman is living proof that it's possible to make a living in the
software business without selling software.  FSF sells computer
distribution services, and individual GNU programmers sell consulting
services, but they give the software away.

>B) Since support is essentially the same as software (ie, mostly time,
>   experience and knowledge), this argument makes no sense to me. Why
>   shouldn't the support be free, as well?

If support only means that the customers will get an update when you feel
like distributing it, your argument is correct; in this case, "support" is
just a subscription service.  Many software vendors provide this kind of
service at little or no fee.

But real support means answering user's questions, processing bug reports,
sending them immediate fixes to serious problems, and perhaps providing
consulting services.  It takes more time to provide this kind of support to
more people, and there are only so many hours in a day.  Supporting one
customer may take away time from another customer.  If you have enough
support customers you may need to hire additional people to help.  Since
there is marginal cost for each customer you support it makes sense to
charge each a fee.

>why shouldn't music be free?

I think the argument I gave about authors in my previous posting applies to
music composers as well.  Unless the composer is also a performer, he
doesn't really have any other avenues to pursue in his field to make a
living.  If all he does is compose, and music were free, how could he make
a living?  (Well, RMS would like to see the government paying programmers
to produce free software, so I guess the government could also pay
composers, artists, writers, etc. -- in other words, composers should be
paid by the NEA, and the music would be free.)

Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar