[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: open source article (fwd)
>But can anyone tell me why software can't be both open and sold like Windows?
>Why is it that software has to be basically given away if it's open? I'm not
>sure that anyone in Open Source has ever answered this question. It just
>seems to be assumed without any critical analysis. Why can't Open Source
>developers get a royalty percentage of the sale price just like writers,
>recording artists or movie actors, and the product sold just like Windows is
>through traditional channels, so that the developers get paid for their work?
>Thanks and best regards,
I think it really comes down to economics. Trying to manage X number
of developers and the money is a costly thing. Since Open Source
means that anyone can write a module or script, trying to figure out
who gets the $$ can be a very time consuming thing to do.
Take a for instance. I write a module that makes my X card work in
my machine. The next guy says he has that card, but had to make some
modifications to it to make it work on his machine. Then someone
packages it and starts selling it, who gets the money? This is a
small example of how complicated this can get.
I would almost wager a bet saying that a lot of the modules written
are based on another module. Going back to that saying "Why reinvent