🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert Wilderspin wrote:
>dblake@dylan.ucsf.edu (Dave Blake ) wrote:
>>Jason Clifford wrote:
>>>Exactly. The ONLY way to make money from GPL software is to be the one
>>>who installs and supports it commercially.

>>No, that's not the only way. 

>>You could sell manuals. Many people buy Redhat's distribution
>>only to have a manual (and a meager one at that).
>
>>O'Reilly makes a ton of cash from free software as well.

>Writing and selling books about GPL software is, in my opinion, also
>commercial support, so Jason's comment was correct.  Support doesn't
>only mean helpdesk work.

Right, but people like Eric Allman and Larry Wall are writing the
manuals. Their GPL software allowed them to write a manual that
will sell millions of copies.



>>Red Hat PAYS the developers, and they WORK for Red Hat.
>>They may produce GPL code and have intellectual freedom,
>>but they are GREAT MARKETING for Red Hat and further establish
>>Red Hat as the number one commercial linux consulting firm.
>
>Agree with you on this one.  Red Hat are giving loads back to the open
>source community, and are rightly getting a lot of credit for it.

One viewpoint is that they are altruistic and giving back
to the open source community.

Another viewpoint is that they are a company. They have a fiscal
bottom line. The marketing they receive from open source
programmers is more than worth the money they pay them.

When Nike supports Michael Jordan, are they "giving back to
the basketball community" or "engaging in heavy marketing." ????


>>Red Hat is doing something I do not see anyone else doing -
>>they are embracing a very different market strategy. They
>>truly believe the future is in support and consulting
>>for linux, and not in distribution sales. They want to 
>>give away the best distribution possible to drive the OS
>>market down to zero dollars.

>Red Hat are still driven by the need for profit, and that will always
>get in the way of creating the ideal distribution, but the
>improvements brought about by their funding vastly outway the
>negatives.

Only if their bottom line is the money made from the 
distribution. I am not so certain that is it. Their
future plan could easily be based on software consulting
and not on their distribution, much in the same way
Netscape is embracing the portal and giving the browser
away.



>>It will be interesting if it works. Unless you live in
>>Redmond.

>Even at the pace Linux is moving at now, Microsoft won't have the
>bailiffs in for a good many years yet.

Don't be so certain. Microsoft has two cash cows - OEM OS
deals, and Office. If the first goes down their net value
will plummet instantly. They have a ton staked on NT 5.0, 
and linux is coming up fast on the server end.


-- 
---
Dave Blake
dblake@phy.ucsf.edu