Paid for applications?

[Shae Smittle]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10 October 2010 22:49, Anthony Papillion <papillion at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Personally, I love the idea of for pay applications. As much as I love
> > open source, there are many applications that will *never* land on the
> > desktop unless the makers can make money off of it. PhotoShop is a
> > much cited example but there are others. Sure, there are sometimes
> > Linux alternatives but, let's be honest: a business isn't going to
> > move their entire graphics team to Gimp when they all are experts in
> > PhotoShop. Some might, most won't.
> >
> > Paid applications are going to be a fantastic thing for Linux.
> > Charging money for apps isn't as evil as some believe and it actually
> > helps a platform sometimes.
> >
>
> What you refer to as 'open source' doesn't need to be free as in free
> beer. It's perfectly possible to make money from free software, just
> as Canonical does, just as Red Hat does, just as Sun did.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
>
> Read and learn.
>
> Chris
>

While some open source companies do make money, one must understand that
that model relies mostly on support contracts and, at least in Canonical's
case, value added options like Ubuntu one.  I am not sure if a similar model
could be applied to something like Photoshop or Office.

On the other hand, I am not sure if this is a good thing for Linux that
Ubuntu is doing this.  It could lead to people mostly being worried about
Ubuntu support rather than Linux support in general if they become a major
program distributor in comparison to the size of Linux.

Shae

-- 
http://shae.me
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20101011/a0a4efd8/attachment.htm