[ILUG-BOM] Re: Ur view is right - But not entirely right and other OT

[Tushar Burman]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jtdyahoo" <jtdesouza at yahoo.com>
To: <linuxers at mm.ilug-bom.org.in>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Ur view is right - But not entirely right and other
OT



> You have the wrong business model. You are trying to sell a product
> to as many people as possible while simultaneously trying to
> prevent them from using it as they deem fit (which includes
> copying).

Yes, but this is the model that would achieve the end - making the most
money. Is there a software business model that would make decent money and
still allow the user to do what he wishes with the software? Frankly, I'd
put my money in MS stock as opposed to RedHat stock. This might seem like
flamebait, but only to those who don't know me already.

> One can assemble a motorbike with spares from the market - duly
> modified to kickass. There is a niche market for this. But if it
> does not kickass (or i prevent others from further customising) no
> body will buy it. Those who do not need the high performance will
> buy a standard model from abc & co. Why? cause it is cheaper than
> the one i assemble using spares - not because of fancy laws. All
> arguments regarding costs / economics put up by the software cos
> are a lot of hot air.

Ok, now I'm a bit confused. Which motorcycle relates to what model of the
software business? I'm assuming most commercial software licenses prevent
the modification of the programs as a whole - even if you own the software
and modify it for your own use - this I definitely don't agree with.

> The same goes for any industry. You can buy a pc from an assembler
> or IBM. Would a law preventing people from buying any machine other
> than IBM be justified.

How does this relate to the software industry? If I buy MS Office, does the
EULA prevent me from buying and installing StarOffice?

> A business built on artificially erected barriers designed to
> protect the minority is doomed to failure.

Agreed, provided there is really no value-addition happening. If a software
company produces a product that has little or no competition, that isn't a
barrier at all. They can sell it as they wish to and we can choose not to
use it if it doesn't suit our philosophy(ies).

> As expertise grows in society premium goods aquire a commodity
> characteristics. Businesses then need customers to uniquely
> identify their products from those of competitors - BRANDING and
> the accompanying marketing baggage. Laws that prevent growth of and
> disbursement of knowledge within society so that only a few may
> benefit has no place in any society.

Agreed. However, again taking the most done-to-death example, I don't think
MS filled the tender for "Heal the world, make it a better place" and even
if they did, I think they would be looked upon with a degree of suspicion.

> One need not be a hermit. But one need not be unprincipled either.
> Make your own value system and live by that.

I agree totally. There must be a middle path.


> government monopoly. So how do you protect the value of your money?
> By converting into a more stable and valuable currency say $
> (GNU-Linux). But this is illegal. Why? as the people migrate to $
> the Rs. will become more worthless and the $ more valuable. Who
> looses? The irresponsible government ofcourse. So govt. builds
> legal barriers and use the FERA (copyright) to nail the smart ones

A most unique explanation :)

How is switching to GNU/Linux illegal or in any way restricted? There are no
software licenses that will prevent you from NOT using the software.

> The GPL tries to prevent the above state of affairs by allowing you
> the option of walking in the direction you please. You can migrate
> to any software. You can preserve the value of your work without
> paying fat premiums. You have access to the same resources as the
> fatcats. It prevents the fatcats from putting up barriers for
> others.

It gives you the option. You had the freedom NOT to use proprietary software
anyway, regardless of GNU / GPL. I don't think it prevents the fatcats from
doing anything. They can spread FUD about it and thats about it. I don't
think any state is about to enact a law making free software illegal.

My bottom line:

We can choose NOT to use proprietary software. It's like a hunger strike,
except thanks to free software, we don't have to go hungry. Now back to my
original question: If software is free, how does one make money out of
software? Business models invited :)

---
Tushar Burman
GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals.
tb at freeos.com
icq: 112803958
y!: tusharburman
msn: tusharburman
aolim: tusharburman
---