The economics of software is independent of whether or not the software is "Open". It is the business model of distribution that sets the economic viability of the software solution and not openness of the code.
but isn't part of the dilemma that the requirements to meeting an "
official" open source license involve granting anyone the license to distribute your open source product and charge whatever they want for it, without any payment or arrangement with the author.
this seems to me part of why we are seeing such a move to indirect profit making from open source software, where companies give away software but find other ways to profit from users (ads, support services), since the very core of an open source license virtually guarantees an inability to raise money *directly* from users for the software.
again, i'm arguing more about a cultural issue than a legal one -- i'm saying that the culture is starting to view the idea that one should contribute financially to software authors or music artists as a foreign concept. we are all starting to think that all software should be free of any (direct obvious) cost. my point is that the consequences of this are unpleasant, and my worry is that some of the open source advocates are hastening our shift to this instead of trying to pair the Open Source revolution with a parallel cultural shift in supporting authors directly.
the commercial community has jumped all over the idea of providing things that look like they are free -- that are free from any direct cost to the user, in order to capture a market and capture a future customer. think about the cell phone companies, who basically "give away" phones in order to capture long term phone plan payments. my point is simply that we are heading towards a point where no one can conceive of paying for software (or donating to support authors) -- where they expect all software to be free and won't tolerate the concept of paying (as a donation or otherwise) a software author or a musician/artist. they will simply conclude that if a musician/software author expects to make a living, they will figure out a way to sell their software to a large company that will leverage that work to get more customers to charge service rates or feed ads to, etc. and i just don't think that's a good thing for the independent author/artist.
and just to reiterate a point i have been trying to make -- i'm not saying we need any new laws or software licenses -- mostly what i'm saying is that those who are interested in Open Source from an ethical standpoint (rather than as a commercial opportunity to increase profits), may have an obligation and an opportunity to try to pair this revolution with a shift in thinking about the need for individuals to directly fund independent developers/artists, and that *THIS* is as important (perhaps moreso) in terms of improving our society than is the concept of "open source" itself.
Recent Posts
