Re: Paying for Open source was Eloquence with NVDA
- From: "black ares" <matematicianu2003@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:50:23 +0200
It can be used even in custom made software.
So if some one wants a php site from me, I simply develop it, charge for
that and that is all.
But I can not do a business from that, because there are a lot of developer
out there.
In business, you must buy a system that adds value to your product.
Or, in open source, all your competitors will see what the added value of
your software is and you will never do a business, you will live from poor
payed website building:)
How ever, software developing is an art, an act for smart people and it
should be payed accordingly.
We must do a distinction between copy-paste developers, and highly skilled
developers capable to create software.
On the other hand, I invested a lot of time in my preparation, to have the
right know to ask the price I want for my software, but for my software, not
for other stupid rights.
So when ever some one buy a copy of my software I charge.
If some one bought my software and from his software finds a way to connect
to my software to do other things it is ok.
The problem starts when that person embed my software in his software and
sell it with out pay me nothing.
But if his software knows to use my software, to connect to it and it sells
its software with this feature, with out embeding my software, it is ok.
Because this way, who wana use my software together with his software or
not, must buy it from me.
That is my opinion.
I learned a simple rule at Economics studies:
In this world nothing is for free.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave" <davidct1209@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: Paying for Open source was Eloquence with NVDA
The only areas where I could see open source being commercially viable
is if you had some other revenue model other than directly selling the
software (i.e. via bundled hardware/ad sales). Open source in it of
itself poses a problem in that any competitors could easily anticipate
anything you do and nullify your app's distinguishing features. A
hybrid (open/closed) source model may also help here. It also doesn't
help that most open source projects attract the more technically
minded of us and it's fairly easy for us to compile the projects
ourselves. Also, open source projects tend to be less friendly to
common users since they usually suffer from a higher concentration of
"developer" design so user interface design, quality, simplicity, and
overall polish/ease of use may be lacking.
If it's all in fun or the greater good then no problem :).
On 11/23/10, QuentinC <quentinc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paying $10 or $100 is not a problem, if the company you pay is honnest
and
if you know that those dollars really go to improve the software as the
users ask, and if you are free to use the software you bough whenever you
want and with whatever you want.
But paying those dollars if you actually know that they will only swell
the
boss' wallet, or if you pay but already know that you will have to pay
again
in 3, 6 or 12 months, sorry, but no. That's an abuse.
To use again the image proposed by another guy on the list:
when you buy a toaster, the seller doesn't have to know if you are going
to
use it with white or black bread.
Nobody would imagine a toaster which would work only for white bread but
not
for black without letting you being aware of that particularity, because
the
constructor has intentionnaly decided that for you.
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
Other related posts:
