These are interesting points and I think it comes close to pointing out the
reason. For me the reasons commercial Linux software fails are:
- Most people will not pay unless they have to. This is not usually
malicious or dishonest, it is natural. Someone gets a program that solves a
problem for them that "cost nothing." Sending in some money to the developer
is not a high priority. The problem is solved, it no longer "squeaks" and so
the developer is forgotten.
- Voluntarily contributions when the "item" can be had without cash layout
goes against self-interest. "Have your solution and keep your money too."
This is very hard to overcome. We face it all the time in the "you"ser group
when requests come in for specific events or classes but no one steps up to
spend the time and money to put it together. The ideas or requests are not
bad, there just is not the willing funding in money or time to do them.
- This community of open/free software users does not want to pay. Either
they are like Derek and support only free (as in freedom) software or they
expect open code. And, if they cannot get something without payment, they do
without or makes up their own solution rather than pay.
The bottom line is that the culture of Linux is contrary to commercial
enterpise and selfish human nature. So, a commercial software company,
writing for the Linux market faces even greater odds against success
than companies targeting the Windows market. And the odds of success in the
Windows market is not very high either, even without the culture working
against it.
All that negativity being said, let me say that I find that the things that
are and have been accomplished by the open/free software community are
commendable and even astounding! The things that PLUG accomplishes are at
the same level. For no dues, no fee, no cost to me but the time to ask it, I
can have any question answered or worked on by any number of people perfectly
willing to help. Companies like SuSE and RedHat and IBM are willing to foot
the bill on development of software that I directly benefit from at no cost
to me. Real value added to my life by people I don't know done willingly
just for the "fun of it." Amazing! Cool!
My hot air will stop after one anecdote: I was talking to a product manager
about using CVS for version control. He was in total disbelief that the
"cost" for the program was $0. "Why would anyone write a good program and
just hand it out for free?!?" His conclusion was that it must not be a good
program otherwise it would cost money. (Huh?!?!)
The open/free software community has just the opposite reaction to closed
commercial software. They will not consider it because it is against
"principle" or they don't want to lay out cash up front. Even if spending $
on a license will save $$$$ over the next year.
Neither position is right or wrong, just extreme.
To directly answer the question on the subject line: Yes I would. If the
solution provided is worth more than the cost of the license, sure I would
pay it. Only after I found that there were no acceptable free alternatives.
;^)
Alan
On Sunday 25 November 2001 03:53 pm, you wrote:
> No. It defeats teh purpose. Rewaqrding someone for 'license' fees is not
> a good thing. However, I have regularly written checks to companies that
> produce free software independent of a 'license'. I have for example
> bought a redhat boxed set.
>
> I.e. I will pay money for commercial grade 'free software', but i will not
> pay money for ANY non-free software.
>
> They dont understand our community. Our community is not about 'leasing
> the privelege of using a vendors software'. Until the vendors understand
> that they will not make money selling leases to closed software on an
> open/free platform.
>
> -Derek
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
> post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)