On 5/25/07, steve szmidt <steve@szmidt.org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 23 May 2007 20:51, Jonathon Conte wrote:
> > I do _not_ believe that if I write a piece of software, I should be paid
> X
> > dollars for each person who happens to come into contact with that
> > software. I should _not_ be paid X dollars for each computer that comes
> > into contact with that software. I should _not_ be paid X dollars for
> each
> > Y data sets my software processes. That is my point.
> >
> > Jonathon
>
> Wow! :)
>
> I get the idea that you think nobody else should get paid either. Thus
> allowing you to get it for less or free. [Please correct me if I'm wrong.]
>
> So much for being a software developer. Or anything else for that matter
> as
> most businesses operate on the idea of making money back after the design
> and
> or learning costs. Just about everything manufactured have a big initial
> cost
> before going into production. This is called investing in yourself.
>
> When you program for a living you dream of making something that can then
> be
> resold many times over. This is called making profit. It's how successful
> societies work.
>
> It does not make a difference if we are talking about an object or a
> program,
> or a service. Something went into creating it. By making something
> desirable
> and selling it for more than you spent you can earn a living. If you're
> really good you make a great living! Power to ya!
>
> The Open Source Community survives on a mixture of people paying money and
> freely contributing to the idea of sharing code and know how. If either
> went
> away it would have a hard time surviving.
>
> You obviously have the choice of donating your efforts without getting
> paid
> for them, just as others have the right to charge.
>
> If someone cannot afford to buy an expensive program, too bad for both
> parties. But that's life. Not everyone can afford to buy the most
> expensive
> solutions. (If you gathered 1000 people to buy a million dollar solution
> you
> could probably negotiate something as expensive stuff usually don't sell
> in
> quantity, thus the high price.)
>
> I contribute financially and with code to OSS while I also charge for
> software
> I develop. I look for a balance which earns me a living and at the same
> time
> contributes to the community that helps me. If I could earn untold
> fortunes
> for something amazingly popular I'd do it in a heart beat! Meanwhile I
> would
> also step up my contributions to things that helped me. Like my friends,
> neighborhood, community and so on. It's about exchange...
>
> --
>
> Steve Szmidt
>
> "They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> Benjamin Franklin
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
> Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
> posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
> official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
>
Steve,
You articulate a point very well that I've been thinking while watching this
entire discussion: it's about maintaining a sense of balance. Should
artists or programmers be paid for their creative effort? Absolutely.
Should they follow anti competitive practices or charge unconscionably high
fees for their effort. Well, they have the right to... doesn't mean they
should.
You mention making money while also giving back. I think it's important to
note that champions of open-source that drive capital towards projects
(think Mark Shuttleworth) first had to make that money by using the
community's software to make their millions. So they stood on the shoulders
of giants and profited from it; in Shuttleworth's case he remembered where
he came from and gave back in a big way.
Even with our software-as-service model these days, programmers deserve to
be paid. I speak as a programmer. I'm not into lining my pockets by working
against the community, but I still charge a fair fee for time I spend
developing software. The service-oriented model is almost closer to
Jonathon's ethic: clients pay a recurring fee for the software, which is
under constant development and improvement. Web-based software makes this
model easier, and the model reminds me of Stallman's original view for free
software, where programmers could be paid for programming without dividing
the community.
I'm sure this all ties back to music download services somehow. :-)
Tyler
-- "The power of the computer is marvelous, and the cost of computer power is small, and you can over time build files that have lots of information on them about people's past preferences, and prejudices, and living patterns." K.R. 1999----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:34:25 EDT