Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] funding free software R&D

[Tobias C. Rittweiler]

[
 Sorry, Tom that you get this message twice, but the CC line of the
 first mail looked likes this: address@hidden,
                                                     ^
]

On Tuesday, August 19, 2003 at 12:22:08 AM, 
    Tom Lord <address@hidden> wrote:

>     > > [quoting my web pages:]
>     > > I don't think this is how free software R&D should really be 
>     > > funded -- but realistically, that's how it _is_ funded for now. 
>
>     > How do you think it ought to be funded?
>
> Free software is sometimes described as a "non-rivalrous public
> good".

Out of interest: Is there any intrinsic difference between public good
                 and common good? I could imagine one.


> But I don't believe that, for the _most_ part, using tax money for
> free software R&D is the long term solution:

I believe that it _is_.


> In short, I think that companies like those listed above should, in
> effect, just give people like me a bunch of money.

A bunch of money.. In one big chunk? Or on a regular basis? For what?
For arch? For developing arch?

See, my point is that government will pay you for producing or extending
common good. Whereas companies will pay you for developing one
product/project.

What will happen if you lose interest in revision control systems? What
will be if you want to hand the maintainership to someone else and if
you resign from arch development completely? I really doubt that you'll
be paid anymore by that private company.

That's a big difference! If you're more or less forced to develop a
piece free software or if you can deliberately work on whatever you
want. I know people who call the first one nomic-free software and the
second one double-free software.


-- tcr (address@hidden)  ``Ho chresim'eidos uch ho poll'eidos sophos''