Re: [fsf-community-team] Argument from economic nessesity

[Simon Bridge]

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 04:39 -0800, Mike VandeVelde wrote:

> 
> "Until we can take the financial aspects seriously & prove ways of 
> maintaining a successful business, very few are going to take it serious."
> 
> If that had been the driving force for humanity throughout all of 
> history, we never would have gotten anywhere. What a sadly limited point 
> of view. Just because you can't think of a way to make money off of it, 
> is no reason to discourage those who can, or much more importantly those 
> whose main concern is not immediate return on investment.


I know where this is coming from: right now - NZ is in a transition
period where there is real progress in mainstreaming free software into
the NZ public sector. In this country, that includes education and
health-care.

Curiously, and in the face of "gnu/linux is not ready for the desktop",
it is the day-to-day desktop that is the first target.

In the private sector, there are lots of inquiries with the big hurdle
of the moment being support and some people worried about the future of
software development.

Private companies have made a virtue out of greed and self interest so
their management are not very open to a community spirit as a support
guarantee however well proven. They want to know their support is paid
for. (Why would someone act in my interests if I don't own them?)

Some sort of overview of what successful business models have been used
would be useful here.

There is a feeling that we have to be careful not to rock the boat. I
just try to make sure we do not lose sight of our core aims ... do we
really need these companies on board? Well: some people are eyeing up
lucrative contracts.

This is very similar to the media companies - their behavior suggests
they have no idea why anyone pays for their "product". Why go to the
movies when you can wait a bit for the DVD? Why watch one movie and not
another? Why pay for a DVD when you can download the ripped version for
free? The DRM systems answer by saying that you will pay for a movie
because you are forced to. Creates an illusion of security for the
people who put up the money. To someone in this mindset, creating a
situation where people can watch what they want has got to be scary -
especially if you suspect your competitors will keep using force.

You get the same under vendor lock-in.

I have to keep reminding people that "pragmatic" is a word lawyers use
when they mean "immoral".