From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 18:25:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 18:25:01 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:2017 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 18:24:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:24:52 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: "Adam J. Richter" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: business models [was patent stuff] Message-ID: <20020527152452.A24502@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , "Adam J. Richter" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200205272152.OAA03070@adam.yggdrasil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jumping on the chance to cause more discussion... This probably ought to be off on some other list, but I don't know what that is. Alan will be sending out the guards to herd me back into the ward, but I've escaped for the moment and I'll make the best of it :) On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:52:13PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: > Eventually, as some companies are bought or go out of > business, it is a statistical certainty that some of these patents > will pass into the control of parties that do not care about the GPL's > penalties for enforcing a software patent If the free software community is ever going to really compete with the non-free software community, they simply have to come up with a better business model than giving it away and trying to make money on support. It's economics 101 - a free market will go to whomever can provide the needed service most cheaply. With no barrier to entry, that means as soon as the price gets high enough, someone will resell the product for less. Which results in razor thin profits, if any at all. In my opinion, it's time for the free software fanatics to ease off and let some moderates come in and try and define a reasonable compromise. We all need to realize that we can let businesses figure it out themselves and we may not like what they decide, or try and define a compromise that can be lived with. Whether you like it or not, the patent ploy works and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it if it is a legit patent. If you hold the "It's GPL or bugger off" position, people will figure out how to work around it and it is virtually certain you won't like what they do. If you offer them some sort of reasonable compromise, I'll bet they take it. If you don't, you get to live with whatever their nasty evil business minds dream up. This whole line of reasoning is why I detest the OSI and Eric Raymond in particular. They had a chance to define a "Buiness Source License" or some other compromise and get the world to consider it as an option. Instead, they just made a lot of noise and for what? Ask yourself - how much more open source is there in the world today versus 5 years ago. Imagine that pile. Now take the OSI out of the picture and tell me what would not be in that pile anyway. Bloody little. The OSI squandered a golden opportunity to really change the world, and I find that depressing beyond words. Sorry, I'm wandering. The discussion I'd like to see is one in which people explored the values they hold dear and tried to come up with a business model which preserves those values and allows that business to compete with the likes of Microsoft. Yeah, yeah, I know that Linux kicks butt for print serving and web serving, but the 99% reason it does is price. It's not because Linux has new compelling features that Microsoft doesn't have, it's because it's hard for Microsoft to compete with stuff that costs zero dollars. The problem isn't where we are, the problem is where we are going (or more to the point, not going). How is Linux and open source ever going to be a leader, producing new applications, new protocols, new languages, new markets when it doesn't generate the incredible amounts of revenue needed to build all that? Ask yourself - how much open source is a reimplementation of what has already been designed and implemented, and how much is fundamentally new? That new stuff costs huge dollars, not because of the cost of building it, but because of the cost of building all the crap that turned out bad but provided the insight that lead to the new stuff. It's really not that hard to reimplement something, open source has proven that beyond all doubt. What it hasn't proven is that open source leads to new ideas, products, and markets. So far, open source follows, it doesn't lead. A reasonable business model might change that. There may be other ways to change it, but something needs to change or 20 years from now there will be open source versions of all the current popular apps, but still playing catch up on the next generation. My 2 cents. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm