🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, PILCH Hartmut wrote:

> Why should you pay for street music that you don't like?  Of course you
> shouldn't.  But if you go to let's say the GNU site and they have set
> a http server parameter that collects a cent per page hit.  Your browser
> would notify you of this and you would consent because you know the music
> is good.  

Whether the contents of a site (or software available there) are good or
not is irrelevant.

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?
 
> I don't understand your solution at all.  The Market clearly decides that
> it wants closed monopolistic software and doesn't give a damn about source
> code.  When speaking about The Market, you can't be referring to any real
> existing markets at least.

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.

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

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.

> 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
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.

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

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.

Jason Clifford
Definite Linux Systems
http://definite.ukpost.com/