[ubuntu-uk] Manchester Free Software : RMS Video

[James Hooker]

Hosting companies are perfect example of this...

apache, sendmail, mysql, php, GNU/Linux, community support are all  
free.... yet hosting companies profit from Free software.

As for developers... if you have made a name for yourself, the chances  
are a company will employ you to administer systems using the software  
you've contributed to, or to use those skills elsewhere (see Ian  
Murdoch)


On 11 May 2008, at 21:29, alan c wrote:

> Matthew Wild wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Thomas Ibbotson
>> <thomas.ibbotson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> However, I am also in favour of credit being given where it's due,  
>>> and
>>> allowing creators/inventors to profit from their work. If someone  
>>> has
>>> put in the time and effort to create or improve something that other
>>> people would like to use, surely they should be allowed to profit  
>>> from it.
>>>
>>
>> Credit is always given, the original creators hold the copyright.  
>> They
>> are also not stopped from profiting from it...
>>
>>> Now I know free software does not mean "free as in beer", so it is
>>> perfectly possible for creators/inventors to profit from their  
>>> work by
>>> charging a fee for it initially. However once it has been bought  
>>> by one
>>> person, who is then free to distribute it and modify it, there is no
>>> guarantee that the original creator can obtain anything further.
>>>
>>
>> ...how they profit is another matter.
>>
>>> In his talk Richard mentions several ways that this could be  
>>> achieved
>>> for free software. He mentions the fact that developers could  
>>> provide
>>> support, at cost, for the software, much like canonical do for  
>>> ubuntu.
>>> However this is not rewarding the original work, this is rewarding  
>>> the
>>> additional effort of supporting the software, expended above and  
>>> beyond
>>> the original effort to develop the software in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> Actually Ubuntu was not wholly developed by Canonical. They used free
>> software to build it, and this is where they gain (as everyone does)
>> from making their software free (as in freedom). In effect I see it
>> as:
>>
>> Loss
>>  * They potentially lost profit from direct sales of the product
>>
>> Gain
>>  * Fast development time (because they could use existing Free  
>> software)
>>  * No costs involved for using this tried, tested, external  
>> software in theirs
>>  * They benefit from a (potentially) unlimited number of developers,
>> which they don't have to pay
>>  * They benefit in various ways from the community that builds around
>> their project
>
> Community benefit:
> I am very well motivated to help with things ubuntu, representing in
> person, marketing, advocacy etc as almost  a full time activity (I
> have the time) entirely at my own cost. I may be a bit unusual but I
> am skilled and as effective as I was when I was reasonably well paid
> by a large water utility for a full time job. I have a passion rooting
> for ubuntu and free software. What would happen if it became too
> proprietary? This passion would quickly evaporate. My imagined
> replacement would be expensive, maybe with less motivation. I would
> probably be lost as a customer too, and all my influenced contacts.
> That is a big downtrade I think.
> I do understand about wanting payment for programming work, (which
> could of course be software libre any way?) but some large old style
> companies are finding things may not be going their way.
> -- 
> alan cocks
> Kubuntu user#10391
>
> -- 
> ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/