[ubuntu-us-ma] Fwd from [Wlug]

[Martin Owens]

On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 19:49 -0400, Algot Runeman wrote:
> OK, A customer pays. Let's start there. You're not a customer unless
> you pay.
> When something doesn't work, what's the option if you, the customer, 
> don't get satisfaction?

If it doesn't work, then normally it _should_ be covered by the goods of
sales acts in various countries which specify that goods are services
must be fit for purpose. There is a liability that we enter into with
any customer (big or individual) and we're legally bound to deal with
our obligations correctly.

As a consumer (this is not the same as a customer) you have far more
options with Free Software than if you were a consumer of proprietary
software.

> You stop paying...

..That one company or person
 a) and start paying a different company or person instead
 b) find a replacement bit of software

> If enough customers don't pay, the product may not survive. Tough
> luck. Get another job.

It might, but even if the company or individual developer doesn't
survive. The 'product' would continue on, because it's Free Software. So
long as there is a market and people know how to respectfully behave in
it, then software can be made fairly and for good money.

> In the world of Free software, what is the interaction? If a user 
> doesn't like a free software program, they complain.

To who? A user might as well complain to their garbage can as complain
to anyone online. For it is their responsibility that the software
works, not anyone elses. That's the point of paying for software,
sharing in and getting someone else to hold the liability for problems.

> Since the program creator isn't "paid" by the user, what's the basis
> for responding to the complaint? Why do you try to satisfy the user?
> She's not your customer, no pay.

The only reason you would respond to a non-customers user's complaint is
because you believe the quality of the software generally would benefit.
either fixing this issue would help your own needs, or your customer's
needs. Plus if the user has taken time to report a bug and is attentive
to responding for information, then they weigh more on the contributor
side of the ledger than the consumer one. The relationship changes.

> One answer to that has been. I'm scratching my own itch. I wrote this 
> program for my own reasons and it works for me. If you use it, great.
> If you don't, no skin off my nose.

It might be. Or you might have written it for a client/customer and
that's who you take care of most attentively.

>  From my perspective, that attitude helps to keep the users at a 
> distance or actually drives them away from this particular project. It
> may also drive users away from free software all together.

Yes but a developer must be weary of getting into a abusive relationship
with the users. The users will demand care and support, the developer
will socially want to give that care... but it's no good unless he's got
the resources to continue to function and live. So a balance is required
between attending to coincidental complaints (things that would effect
lots of people including paying customers), attending to charity cases
and working with collaborators.

> If a "user group" seeks to attract new free software users, what is 
> their role in the relationship between non-paying users and
> developers?

The user group is an advocacy and educational remit. Mostly social and
rarely business orientated. Any advocacy group should be aware of and
try and improve the economic as well as social situation of free
software development. Encouraging new users to become part of the
collaborative model or explaining and showing them how they can pay
their way and get support from local programmers. Even pooling money to
get things fixed if big enough.

> Does the user group need to be the activist layer which separates and 
> buffers between the casual user and the itch-scratching developer so 
> that a new user can gradually learn the attitude needed to connect
> with the developer? 

Perhaps. All this stuff is rather new. So we're still finding what
things we need to tell users to make sure that they are able to make
that leap from coincidental user to collaborator or customer.

Martin,