TonStanco@aol.com writes:
I was being unclear. What I should have said is "near zero development cost,"
I read your explanations carefully. Could is be summarized as: Free Software cannot be developped if there is competition ? Or: If Free Software wants to compete with non free software from a commercial market point of view, it must find ways to reduce competition in order to better share the develpment costs ?
What I have troubles to understand is why competition would harm people and companies working on Free Software. My assumptions are that 80% of the commercial activity surrounding Free Software is unrelated to development (packaging, support, training, counseling, branding, exhibitions etc.) and the other 20% is related to development. I also assume that in a Free Software economy you pay for software development because you need it (internal software infrastructure, missing components that will make packages sell better, improve your brand etc.).
If you pay for a development to be done, it can be used by others. This may be seen as a disadvantage but it's the game. At the same time you benefit from the development paid by countless others. All in all everyone wins. If you sell packages only and never pays for any developers (this is a dream since we all known package makers have significant development costs) then you provide a necessary added value to the Free Software that you ship : it becomes available to the public. The public will know and use the software and is more likely to pay for more development to the companies that are able or willing to do this. If you sell training courses it is very likely that you won't pay for development at all. However the people you educate will better understand the software and are likely to require more developments (to extend its functionalities or dialog with other software or catchup with standards etc.). I could go on the same logic but I guess you understood the logic I'm following.
My feeling is that everyone selfishly pays for the bits it needs and when you add all the bits it makes a great Free Software universe. Also, not everyone doing business with Free Software pays for development but to the very least the become dependant on Free Software and this, in itself, is a value added.
I have troubles understanding why a structure should be built to better redistribute the development costs. What is the major drawback that needs to be fixed in this way ? I think you know have a clear view of my understanding of the situation and will better be able to fix it if needs be.
Cheers,