🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <F0B8I1.475@a2e.de> phm@a2e.de "PILCH Hartmut" writes:
> Some social models of financing Open Source development are also
> conceivable. I.e. a hardware tax whose revenues are used for public bidding
> or prize awarding.

IMO this would be a good idea.

Note that things like this are already in existance today. For example,
much TV programming in Britain is funded by a tax -- the "TV license".

Also in Britain, anyone who writes a book gets money from the state,
based on the number of times their book has been lent from public
libraries.

So there is plenty of precendent for this sort of thing.

If 1% of the purchase price of all computers went to organisations
funding Open Source software, this would give it a big boost. Open
Source is already a major part of the software world -- a large
part of the programs I use every day are Open Source -- and much
Open Source software is of high quality, for example the Apache
web server which runs 53% of all web sites.

> With today's level of public communication, it should be
> possible to develop this (what some people may call socialist style) economy
> in a sound and credible way.  And however corrupt the system may become,

I'm sure there would be mechanisms against corruption.

> it
> won't be more inept than "The Market", which has shown itself to be totally
> inept in creating informational values.

I suspect the total number of man-hours used to create Linux were
less than NT or Windows 98, but Linux is a much better system for
most uses. 

Similarly, Apache is amuch better system than IIS.

And with Open Source software, people don't have to continually
reinvent the wheel. This is a major economic benefit in its
own right.

-- 
@@--Phil Hunt-----------------------------Don't fear the penguins(*)--@@ 
@@  [*] Disclaimer: this is FREE ADVICE, and is distributed in the    @@
@@  hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; note also  @@
@@  that this advice may not apply if your name is Gates or Ballmer.  @@