Open Source vs. Commercial Software

[stu]

On Monday 24 October 2005 11:19, FoulDragon at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/24/2005 11:04:10 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
>
> derek at gnue.org writes:
> >it propagates the notion that non-proprietary software does not have an
>
> economic value.  >Which is false.
>
> It's difficult to pin down an economic value for an item that's not
> actually sold.  Typically, the market for selling an item determines its
> value.
>
> However, propriatery software has equally faulty valuations.
>
> Just as OpenOffice is worth more than the $2.89 a copy for a CD and
> postage, Microsoft Office is probably not worth $489 except by merit of an
> artificially constricted market for it.

	How's this for an analogy:
	Air is free - How is it possible to make money on Air?

	We have companies building air conditioners, air purifiers, air humidifiers 
and dehumidifiers and heat pumps so we can all have air we are comfortable 
with.
	We have companies building air compressors so other companies can build and 
use tools that make use of that compressed air as a form of power to do just 
about anything they please with it.
	While no one actually *makes* air, useable air comes from plants, which could 
be considered an important by product of Farming and decorative landscaping, 
industries which make their money producing food and environments we are 
willing to pay for.
	If some Mega Monopoly were able to patent air, charge us for it, and control 
how we were able to use it, does anyone really think that would make for a 
better world?

	The comparison may be a little simplistic, but I think it makes a point.