On 6/16/06, Alexander Jacob Tsykin <gmail.com">stsykin gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:10, Andrew Zajac wrote:
>; Microsoft make more money because they were able to convince people that
> software is the same kind of product as any material goods.
>;
and there is a solid argument to be made for this
See the last paragraph below.
most people do not want to improve it. They don't have the time or the
inclination.
No one is pointing a gun to your head, insisting that you patch and recompile your Ubuntu kernel. You just can if you like.
actually they do, its called a seminar. Doctors don't learn things by
telepathy, they need to pay to learn. Otherwise they pay for medical journals
to learn about new techniques.
And this is different from the FLOSS business model how?
>
They need to teach others, who pay for it, effectively making it their
property in practice, if not in law.
Huh? Just because you teach something doesn't make you own rights to it. You can even have a sugical procedure named after you; it still does not allow you to charge royalties to others when they perform it.
;
>
All of these already occur, including talented doctors who can';t perform
procedures because they can't afford the courses or equipment.
But not that they cannot afford the rights to perform certain procedures.
>
Which applies for absolutely any commodity which is in demand, and is a
Utopian vision never to be realised.
It doesn't have to be Utopia for it to work. ; I think it already works. Will it go further and the desktop OS will becom commoditized? At the rate things are going, I think so. I doubt it's utopian to think that.
Should *all* software be free? ; Maybe that's Utopian thinking. You don't have to belive it should to use it and appreciate it, though.
azz
|