Linux should not support non-free modules
Christopher Browne
<gfische...@hub.org> wrote:
>Linux is a conglomerate of sunk work by a bunch of developers.
>The price for the O/S doesn't necessarily reflect the work
>put into it.
It is true that once software is deployed, the costs represent "sunk
costs," that are thus no longer an issue relevant to decision making.
However, when starting a project to build some "free software," it is
necessary to come up with a "funding model" that reflects this, so that
sufficient resources may be captured to support the project until it is
essentially 'complete,' at which point the "sunk cost" principle kicks
in.
>Linux is breaking into the corporate world. Those users
>ride the wave, getting a lot of free work that has been
>donated. Sure, it cost someone somewhere, but the developers ate
>the cost already when they released the code.
>
>Is this sustainable? I think it is; if more people are
>writing non-free code for Linux/UNIX, then there are more
>developers learning about Linux/UNIX programming. This
>is a good thing, as it will likely increase the potential
>pool of programmers working on the free code as well.
For "hobby work," with relatively small projects, there is little need
for "economic incentives." There are lots of options of small projects
that don't involve a 'million dollar' cost.
But for larger projects, in order for projects to continue to be
sustainable, it is necessary to have people continue to be willing to
release free code. They need to capture enough value either by
receiving funding *before* the release or via other "subsidies" such as
the ever-popular "after market servicing."
--
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars
has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost
anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the
serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. (By
jd...@winternet.com, Jeff Dege)
cbbr...@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/fssp.html>