markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) (01/18/90)
All this talk about shareware has gotten me thinking a bit about the reasons why people write software. During my education and now my professional career, I have seen a large number of people enter the field whose main motivation was to make money. Let's face it. There are bucks to be made here. There are many ways a guy can turn a good living, even people who have relatively little talent. There are also those who are the "hackers". The guys and gals who love to make a program hum, who like to push computers in new ways. Inventing better mousetraps. Improving the way that people can use computers. Having fun. LEARNING. I like people to use the programs I write. I now get paid to develop programs, and have a relatively liberal understanding with my employers so that I can distribute what I write. Even before that however, I was glad to release any/all programs that I wrote that I thought might be of interest. As a result, I have managed to get numerous people interested in computer graphics. Jef P.'s excellent image manipulation stuff is a great tool, and I use it often. Larry Wall's perl, rn, warp, patch.... phenomenal software. What motivated these people to write? They saw a need, and they must LIKE to do it. They had the motivation and the opportunity, and created something that we all benefit from. I think they are swell guys. The FSF foundation is another example. I have been a vehement critic of their copyright, because I believe that placing any restrictions on usage results in a form of intellectual blackmail, but they are certainly deserving of praise for creating software that everyone can use. There are also commercial software houses, which develop programs for money. Unlike the FSF, I perfectly acknowledge their right to exist. Its a matter of supply and demand. If the program is needed, people will pay. And people will pay for support as well. I have no problems with paying for software, it is merely an exchange of services. Shareware seems to be a different animal. It is typically written by the same sort of people as myself, or Jef, or Larry, but these people seem to believe that they should be compensated for their time and effort. Hence the copyrights, and wierd license agreements, most of which are home brewed and not enforceable, and are only morally and ethically defendable if you accept the same subjective judgements as the person who wrote it. If you want to publish software and make money, take the time to do it. Get your software copyrighted and registered, and SELL IT. Advertise. Give copies away to reviewer's of magazines. Make it the best thing since sliced bread. Support it. After all, it is your creation, take some effort to see that it is distributed in a way that you like. If however, programming is a labor of love, a form of creativity, then just do it, and don't gripe too much. Mark VandeWettering
jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (01/19/90)
In article <13014@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) writes: > > All this talk about shareware has gotten me thinking a bit about the > reasons why people write software. > > During my education and now my professional career, I have seen a large > number of people enter the field whose main motivation was to make money. > Let's face it. There are bucks to be made here. There are many ways > a guy can turn a good living, even people who have relatively little > talent. With a de-emphasis on defense and an impending slow-down in the defense industry I wouldn't be too surpised if software vendors didn't start laying off tons of their dead-weight "computer professionals" and start requiring their remaining software people to become more versitile and productive. Come to think of it, this also means that companies will be loosing a LOT of their dead-weight middle management and require managers to become more versitile and technically proficient. On the whole I view this as beneficial (but then I have a job right?). Saves the tax-payer money and enhances the quality of all software products. I'm tired of dealing with incompetent vendors and crummy products that promise the world, but offer the same old bugs.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/19/90)
> Shareware seems to be a different animal. It is typically written by the > same sort of people as myself, or Jef, or Larry, but these people seem to > believe that they should be compensated for their time and effort. I don't see shareware as a different animal at all. It's in between Freeware and commercial software. You always have the option of not using it, as I have the option of not using GNUware (and indeed I don't use it). It's just another voluntary contract. And like all such contracts, both parties benefit. So what's the problem? > the copyrights, and wierd license agreements, most of which are home brewed > and not enforceable, and are only morally and ethically defendable if you > accept the same subjective judgements as the person who wrote it. What about those of us who use a standard freeware license, and then add a request for donations. Not as part of the license, and not as any sort of restriction on the distribution of the program, but as a simple request for compensation if you happen to like the program? Who could possibly have a problem with that? > If you want to publish software and make money, take the time to do it. > If however, programming is a labor of love, a form of creativity, then just > do it, and don't gripe too much. The only griping I see is from the other side. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'