🚀 go-pugleaf

Jason Clifford <jason@ukpost.com> writes:

>What I stated is that access to sites containing information about free
>software should be free (and should all sites about software), after all
>how do I KNOW that the product is worth anything at all until I can see
>the information and the product for myself?

Access is never free, or do you want the author to pay *all* of the surfing
costs, not only half of them, as he is doing now?  

>Strange then that my company (Definite Linux Systems), the Linux Emporium,
>Red Hat, S.u.S.E, Caldera and so many others are in the business of
>providing software and services to the Linux market.

You are not selling software but services.  Anybody can sell these services
without creating software.  And the less software he creates the more time
he will have for the services.  Most customers even prefer people who spend
all their time on serving them and none on idealism which only distracts.

>Strange also that the fastest growing sales for any (non-game) software
>product is for the Linux OS.

Maybe in terms of number of pieces sold, but not in terms of revenue.

>The market clearly does want software such as Linux. Probably for most
>people having the source code makes little real difference but the quality
>and scope of Linux does.

The Market then seems to be acting against its will.  It doesn't reward
developpers of free software.

>> If electronic payment entered the HTTP protocol, the Internet would become
>> much more friendly toward free software.  Currently the people who contribute
>> software to others have to pay for those who suck.  For example on my site
>> each MB that someone sucks costs me 2.50 DM.  The GNU people need sponsors
>> to pay for all the suckers.  Now that really sucks.  You need advertising
>> banners and dependency on capitalist sponsors in order to provide free
>> information.  Why?  Because the HTTP protocol is to stupid to give people
>> the freedom to choose the bargain conditions they themselves want.

>When I receive advertising through the post I do not pay for it - the
>sender does. When I buy a paper or magazine much of the price is
>subsidised by advertising for which the advertiser pays. If you want to

I would prefer to read a magazine that is paid for by the readers and not
the advertisers.  But this is hardly possible, because any valuable
information that a magazine could find out would become known and used
by everybody, not only the buyers of the magazine.  Market economy just
doesn't work for information.  That's why advertising comes in --- and
more or less corrupts the editorial content of the magazine and prostitutes
the editor.

>make something available and publisise it, you have to pay for doing so.
>If what you are making available is any good you can charge for it or
>invite contributions - users of 'free' software do often send in
>donations.

Exactly.  They would do so more often, if HTTP had provisions for it.
And the dependence on advertising banners could be lessened if a website
could be maintained at the expense of the readers rather than the editors.

>I have it when someone sends me junk email as I have to pay to receive it.

Here also it would help if the mail protocol (SMTP) allowed users to 
charge for receiving mail.  This would solve the spam problem.

>I would also not be inclined to have anything to do with a 'free' software
>site that charged me for accessing the site even just to discover whether
>the product is at all worthwhile or just another piece of cr*p.

That's why free software sites would make very careful use of the 
HTTP e-cash feature, if they had it at their disposal.  The normal rule
would become to charge just enough so that the site is paid by the readers
rather than the editors.

>I am sure that companies like MS would love your proposal. Charging people
>to access info on bugs and fixes for a product they have already paid 
>for would be right up their street, but I suspect that most 'free
>software' people would be less enamoured of the idea.

No matter what meaning of "free" you take ---
Free speech:
 Freedom to choose the bargaining conditions oneself,
 Freedom from assault by money-taking robots and spammers from around the globe
 Freedom to determine one's fate oneself
 Freedom to express one's opinion, even if it scares away ad-banners
Free beer:
 possibility to operate a website free of cost

All this makes it a very attractive idea for free software people and
very unattractive for Microsoft.

The current system puts M$ in a money-collecting position already.  E-money
HTTP wouldn't enhance their position, but it would relatively enhance the
position of the others.

Now, in order to make up for their huge web traffic expenditures, free
software people now feel compelled to place an M$ advertising banner on
their site.  Look at the Gutenberg site (promo.net/pg/) for a striking
example.

--
Hartmut Pilch
http://www.a2e.de/phm/