Re: sustainable development

[steve paesani]

Hi,

 

> ... Developers charge for the actual work being done -- and once payed, the
> availability of the results doesn't need to be restricted

 

I agree.

 

> If nobody pays development, no development takes place.

True, free software is, by fact, a myth. Lest developers have starved to death

after 7 or so days of programming GPL licensed code they were sustained, somehow, by others which invariably equates to getting paid.

The organised and suastained suport however form much of the software written

in this manner can be said by some if not may to be lacking.

 

I am for an open development compensation licence. It is straightforward, honest,

and alleviates the what I and perhaps others might say is overcharging for running a

'market copy and print' shop, aka royalties, after development, maintenance and enhancement costs are covered.

 

I consider myself a fair man/person in business and have  no innate need to make millions of dollars even if I could. Raking others dry is simply not my cup of tea and has never settled well with me.

 

I might hope yet am pretty sure that I am not alone with this view.

 

I'll keep in touch,

Steve.
>
> and I thought RedHat model was in the true spirit of  running a free
> software business. They give the sources to anyone to do anything with
> it. So I don't think it matters if the CDs containing binaries are
> patented, I have the source. Though you are right in saying, people
> buy it because of "The Brand". As per experience Ubuntu and Red Hat
> are two worst distros I have ever experienced as Linux user,

That's rather subjective, and totally besides the point too. Also, the
models are very different: one of the fundamental ideas behind Ubuntu
was never to charge merely for the ability to obtain an "official" copy.
The support contracts from Canonical are entirely optional.

> 2nd, why would a customer will pay when gets binaries and sources and
> updates and everything ? (from the point of business)

If nobody pays development, no development takes place. And businesses
are generally interested to see improvements in the software (bug fixes
at the very least), so they are usually willing to pay development.
Simple as that.

> Well, I am in Hyderabad (INDIA). Here M$ pays 90,000-150,000 INR per
> month (INdian Rupees) to freshers with strong skills i programming.
> The average salary of a fresher (programmer) in India will be 15000
> (my colleague earns that) and you come to 45,000 only after 3 years of
> experience with a Engineering degree (no other graduates) which is
> just 50% of the minimum level of M$. I earn 20,000 (= 1000 USD) and I
> think it will take another 15-20 years before I get to that 90,000
> level. I don't know how much Red Hat pays but 90,000 for programming
> is big money.

Well, it's interesting to hear that there is such a large span...
There's nothing even close to that here in the "western" world.

Note though that, from what I heard, Microsoft programmers are under
such a high pressure, that after some 10-15 years they are mental
wrecks, unable to do any programming work anymore. So they better pay
them good...

Also, Microsoft might understand better than the others that a really
good programmer is *much* more productive than a medicore one (one or
two orders of magnitude), and thus paying much more to get the best
makes perfect sense...

In either case, these are strategic decisions that have nothing to do
whatsoever with the licensing model.

-antrik-