Comments on: Commercial Services for Bazaar

By: neo

neo — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:41:52 +0000

“Now, me as a single developer, and not a corporation selling support services or hardware, is not going to be able to sell services for an game I develop”

You are missing the point. You are not entitled to make any money unless you convince the value of what you are selling to potential consumers. Whether or not, software is open source is orthogonal to it.

By: Jef Spaleta

Jef Spaleta — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:26:43 +0000

adam:
The assumption there is that you should be able to make a living writing these sort of applications. Maybe you shouldn’t. Maybe computer programming is more like being a musician where a very small percentage of the people creating content actually make money from from selling copies of their music and most get a paycheck some other way.

In any event.. I think you are going to find that the Ubuntu community is particularly less likely to pay for software applications than other cultivated communities of software users. That’s part of the attraction to use Ubuntu isn’t it.. the no acquisition cost model? Why would the people attracted to a no cost operating system be interested purchasing small value-add applications? I don’t see it happening. But good luck to you none-the-less.

-jef

By: adam

adam — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:46:08 +0000

Both of you (neon & jeff) are missing the point! Red Hat makes its money from corporate support services, Intel of hardware, and the SCM’s and OS’s make money off corporate support services like what this article is about! Now, me as a single developer, and not a corporation selling support services or hardware, is not going to be able to sell services for an game I develop (NOTE: not an online game), as it will not be geared toward corporations, but end users. So, tell me again, how am I to make a living using an open source license for my software, when those licenses state that users are free to DISTRIBUTE MY HARD WORK? This is precisely the problem with the open source licenses, it does not take the little guy, trying to make a living, into account. It works great in a situation were you are offering services to go along with your software, but not when there are no services to be had.

By: neon

neon — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:48:59 +0000

Emacs developers are not going opt for paid support services from Canonical. If you are using open source SCM’s subversion in the past and now Git have basically won the game. Canonical is not going to get much if any money from this offering.

“While many Ubuntu fans tend to have qualms with Canonical’s lack of universal commitment to the ideals of the free-software world, they should keep in mind that the company is one of the only major players in the ecosystem that has consistently put pragmatism before ideology.”

And if Red Hat, Intel etc but “pragmatism” as a reason to continue developing proprietary software, how would Ubuntu have been able to reuse them? Don’t see the rich irony in this?

Adam: you ask “Why would anyone trying to make living as an ISV use these licences?” but you ignore many ISV’s doing exactly that. Aren’t you denying reality.

By: Jef Spaleta

Jef Spaleta — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:29:58 +0000

adam:

Without the redistribution clauses on thousands of individual software projects that you say are a problem… Ubuntu would not exist. I think your point of view is a bit narrow.

By: adam

adam — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:40:27 +0000

I think that this is great for Ubuntu and the community! As long as Ubuntu is generating revenue, it will be able to continue its development and partnership with the big players like Dell and Amazon. I personally like what they are doing in this area. I am a developer that likes open source (to a point), but I also like to be able to purchase groceries and pay rent, etc. I would like to offer my software on the Ubuntu App Center with a small nominal fee (maybe $5 or $10) attatched and after purchace I will be happy to provide the source for personal use (read hacking), but NOT REDISTRIBUTION! This is major flaw in the open source licenses, as it stands if it is licensed under (L)GPL(v2, v3), ASL, or EPL and I charge for the service of download or distribution media they can just take the source code and give it away! Why would anyone trying to make living as an ISV use these licences?