🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6FEB199211575588@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov> dc@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Cottingham) writes:

> I have unsuccessfully been trying to figure out exactly how this business
> of supporting free software is supposed to work out.  But since there
> are functioning businesses out there that do it, there is clearly an
> answer.  The conventional system operates sort of like an unregulated
> utility -- the people who own the code set themselved up as the only
> people who maintain it, and they spread the costs of their activity
> evenly over everyone who wants fixes.

> The customers are encouraged to
> pay for this service by the fact that they have no other option for
> getting bugs fixed.  For free software, if you make the patches freely
> available, how do you design your service so as to avoid having each
> patch paid for entirely by the customer that asked for it?

The present industry may have confused you as to what service should
be.  If you think of a quality product, the producer of such product
should feel an obligation to remove defects and prevent them from
disrupting his customers' work.  Service should not be so much about
defect removal but about extending functionality to meet customer
demands and supporting them in their use of the product through
training and consulting.  If a customer has his specific needs met in
an economical fashion, it is doubtful he will care whether he paid
exactly his fair share of the service company's yearly revenue.

Think of the bigger picture and it may appear to you.  Free software
opens up the service market and allows competitive forces to deliver
more quality service for software products.

--
Bob Weiner				   rsw@cs.brown.edu
Personalized Information Environments are good for you.