🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DAVIDM.92May24144212@consilium.com> davidm@consilium.com (David S. Masterson) writes:

>Sorry, I didn't mean this to be a flamewar.  There are some aspects to the
>idea of "free" software that I don't understand yet and I'm trying to compare
>and contrast opinions on "free" software to see how they hold up (especially
>with my own).  In order to draw out all the interesting ideas, some of my
>statements may need to be seemingly flameworthy.

Well, the fundamental thing people seem to butt heads with is that
free software doesn't fit in with the traditional concept of the
"right way" to run a software house. So if you come at life with that
attitude, free software isn't going to make sense, and nobody will be
able to explain it to you either.

>You'll note, though, that these reasons tend toward making "basic" technology
>generally available in order to "level the playing field".  When it comes to
>new advances that I make, then I want the option to leverage those new
>advances to my benefit. 

Are new advances where the money is at? The biggest expense for
software is product support, not development. If you believe that the
only way for you to rake in that money doing support is to offer a
product that's far better than the competition, it's no wonder that
you'd want to keep it to yourself. If, on the other hand, think
reaping the benefits of free software is a better advantage, then
you'll like that. What you pick depends on what you think is better --
few people are going to launch 2 companies to figure out the "right
answer", they'll just go with what they think.


> This is where most companies have a problem with
>"free" software in that it can force a company to make its "new advance"
>generally available without getting all the benefits out of it that it could.

Or, keeping it to yourself can cause your new advance to go unnoticed,
because it's not enough of a reason for the competition's customers to
switch to you. Then what have you accomplished?