gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (12/19/87)
[Discussion redirected to comp.sources.d, please followup there. Alt.sources
is for source code. -- gnu]
My position is that if the actual terms under which the software is
distributed are OK, the author is free to ask people to voluntarily do
anything, including send them money.
The terms of the Chat software look a lot like the usual Berkeley, GNU,
utzoo, or other terms: keep our copyright, include the whole piece of
work, let people know it can be gotten for free if you charge for it, etc.
In fact the legal terms are less restrictive than the GNU software;
GNU won't let you redistribute in binary without source, and the only mod
you can make to the terms is to add a warrantee.
Carl Gutekunst's entry in the "comp.sources.unix archives" listing says
that to get tapes of archived software from him, you should "call WELL in
advance and bring lunch money". Is that an outrageous thing to ask?
How does that compare with asking people who use the software to
voluntarily send in $29? I think both are fine as long as people who
disagree are able to legally get and use the software for no money.
If you like this article and you want to reward me, just email your
contribution, in US$, to gnu@toad.com :-).
--
{pyramid,ptsfa,amdahl,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
"Watch me change my world..." -- Liquid Theatrefarren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (12/20/87)
In article <3669@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > >My position is that if the actual terms under which the software is >distributed are OK, the author is free to ask people to voluntarily do >anything, including send them money. It's worth remembering, long and often, that the person who pretty much invented the 'Shareware' concept, the late Andrew Fluegelman, called it 'Freeware' and repeatedly emphasized the fact that the person who used his software was under no, repeat, NO, obligation to send any money unless they felt like it. They were free to use it, copy it, give it away, anything they liked, all without paying a dime. If, however, they used it and liked it, they were encouraged (NOT required) to contribute money - the amount was suggested, but NOT legislated. They could send less, or more, as their conscience required. Andrew's concept has always struck me as being eminently fair and enlightened. I only wish that all the other 'shareware enterpreneurs' had taken his lead. Instead, they try and demand payment, which demeans both themselves and their customers. It's worth noting, also, that Andy Fluegelman made out like a bandit - he found that when given the chance, and not pressured, people responded. Funny thing, that - when trust is given, trust is repaid. What a revolutionary concept! -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa | Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
wfp@dasys1.UUCP (William Phillips) (12/21/87)
In article <3669@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > My position is that if the actual terms under which the software is > distributed are OK, the author is free to ask people to voluntarily do > anything, including send them money. I'd just like to say I support your position absolutely! > If you like this article and you want to reward me, just email your > contribution, in US$, to gnu@toad.com :-). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (Is that enough $? If not I'll post some more ... hey, no problem!) (Mailer food) -- William Phillips {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!wfp New York, NY, USA (-: Just say "NO" to OS/2! :-)
michael@wundt.psy.vu.nl (M.A.M. Felt) (12/22/87)
In article <3669@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >[Discussion redirected to comp.sources.d, please followup there. Alt.sources >is for source code. -- gnu] > >If you like this article and you want to reward me, just email your >contribution, in US$, to gnu@toad.com :-). >-- Wouldn't you rather have a hard currency. The US$ is a bit soft these days. :-> michael -- Michael Felt Psychology Dept, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands InterNet: michael@psy.vu.nl UUCP: ...!mcvax!vupsy!michael , michael@vupsy.UUCP AppleLink: HOL0038
samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) (12/28/87)
Perhaps the original developer of the shareware/freeware concept made a killing because he did it at the right time. I do not think that it works anymore. Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, which is then posted for the world to use, for free? -- Dominick Samperi, Manhattan College, New York, NY ...!ihnp4!cmcl2!manhat!samperi ...!ihnp4!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!samperi
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (12/28/87)
In article <3669@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Carl Gutekunst's entry in the "comp.sources.unix archives" listing says >that to get tapes of archived software from him, you should "call WELL in >advance and bring lunch money". Is that an outrageous thing to ask? Lest anyone get the wrong impression :-), that statement is intended to be toungue-in-cheek. I like meeting new people, and if someone is making the effort to drop by my office with a mag tape, then the least they can do is stick around for lunch.... No, I don't expect them to buy mine! :-) <csg>
manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) (12/28/87)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP> samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >Perhaps the original developer of the shareware/freeware concept made a >killing because he did it at the right time. I do not think that it works >anymore. I agree. The moniker "Freeware" is usually associated with the granddaddy of such program offerings, PC-Talk. I'm curious if Fluegelman's concept really was as profitable as all that given that (the last I heard) PC-Talk dumped Freeware and went commercial. >Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software >system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, >which is then posted for the world to use, for free? What motivates me is lack of resources to even consider marketing Magpie commercially. Five years ago, you could stick a floppy disk and a few sheets of offset-printed literature in a baggy and call it a commercial program. That was back when, except for a few heavy guns, most software was sold with about the same level of sophistication as your neighborhood dope dealer. I'll be releasing Magpie Shareware very soon (maybe January) but without any tricky internal counters or lockouts. I don't plan on making bus fare from it. However, enhancements are already planned and those will go into a commercial version. By then, I hope there's enough name recognition and appreciation for the program that people will "upgrade" for the sake of a more heavily-featured version. If not, no reprisals (the unconscionable swine). -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------- + Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. NYC + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + uunet!iuvax!bsu-cs!zoo-hq!magpie!manes 300/1200/2400
rlk@think.COM (Robert Krawitz) (12/28/87)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP> samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes:
]Perhaps the original developer of the shareware/freeware concept made a
]killing because he did it at the right time. I do not think that it works
]anymore.
Perhaps the "original developer" of the shareware/freeware concept
wasn't interested in making a killing in terms of money. Maybe s/he
wanted to let everyone have a useful hack but wanted a little return
on his or her time and effort. Maybe people who used it were
impressed by the generosity and trusting attitude of said person
compared to the more predatory ("We don't warranty that this will even
load in off disk, but if you so much as let anyone else use this,
we'll come in and take everything you own") software houses and
decided that a good deed merits a good deed in response.
]Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software
]system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort,
]which is then posted for the world to use, for free?
Perhaps a desire to help others?
There's actually another reason why some people may distribute
software in a shareware fashion. Suppose you sell something for $300,
but 9 out of 10 copies out there are "shared", "pirated", or whatever.
Now, most of those may be done one at a time, rather than by really
organized pirates. Suppose that instead you distribute it shareware,
and 80% of the people with copies send you $50. You're coming out
better in the long run and it's much less effort (your sales budget is
much lower, etc.). You'll never be able to go after the people
copying your program in the first case, but you're losing a lot per
copy.
harvard >>>>>> |
bloom-beacon > |think!rlk Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>
ihnp4 >>>>>>>> .majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) (12/29/87)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP> samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software >system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, >which is then posted for the world to use, for free? Answer 1: The programmer is a student, and developed the software on university hardware. Regulations forbid it being sold. Answer 2: The programmer doesn't believe in fleecing people. --- Marc Majka
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (12/29/87)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP> samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >Perhaps the original developer of the shareware/freeware concept made a >killing because he did it at the right time. I do not think that it works >anymore. Perhaps. I tend to believe that it could work, even now, but have no way of proving this (short of doing it and making a killing, of course :-) >Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software >system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, >which is then posted for the world to use, for free? Because of philisophical disagreement with the way our economic system operates. Because of a desire to see one's name spread as far and wide as possible. Because of a lack of funding to support a 'commercial' release. Because of a desire to avoid the compromises and interference that a marketing department might force. Because of a desire to see something one thinks of as useful and neat available to as many others as possible. These are examples. I'm sure you can think of others. There seem to be as many reasons for shareware distribution as there are people doing it. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa | Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (12/30/87)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP> samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software >system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, >which is then posted for the world to use, for free? I wrote Freemacs (the only freely copyable programmable editor for the IBM PC and clones) because FSF's GNU emacs is too big to run on PCs. I did it for my own use, but I would rather see large numbers of people gain from my effort, so I distribute it for free. Because of the nature of the program, mostly techies are attracted to it, so I don't get many calls of the form "Which way do I put the floppy into the drive?" questions. My reward is the satisfaction of a job well done. -russ
jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (12/30/87)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP>, samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: > Perhaps the original developer of the shareware/freeware concept made a > killing because he did it at the right time. I do not think that it works > anymore. It doesn't work any more because people are trying to make a killing. Consider a package we have here which is `Shareware'. The author expects $35 if you like it. Well, I don't think the damned thing is worth $35. Ten or fifteen dollars maybe, but not thirtyfive. > Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software > system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, > which is then posted for the world to use, for free? About five years ago I developed a database system and report writer. It runs under just about any Unix, uses curses, and so on. Back then it was fairly state of the art for Unix on PC's. Then, RDS came out with Informix and blew my dreams of selling this thing and making a fortune. At one time the sources were available to friends and so on. Now, I'm writing a new database system to replace Informix 3.30, and I need to keep my grubby hands on the code. If you knew me 4 or 5 years ago, you'd have gotten a nice, fast, little database system for free. That project took 6000+ hours of programming and in original form was 15,000 lines of assembler. But, given that it had no commercial value, well, why not give it away? Or maybe charge for the documentation. [ Informix is a trademark of Relational Database Systems, or whatever they changed their name to. ] > -- > Dominick Samperi, Manhattan College, New York, NY - John. PS - I may be releasing an ACE parser and listing generater to the net sometime soon. I can't see that having much real commercial value either. I guess that's the key to what it takes me to release (free|share)ware. -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@killer) | "There are really not many jobs that actually HECI Exploration Co. Inc. | require a penis or a vagina, and all other 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 | occupations should be open to everyone." Dallas, TX. 75243 | - Gloria Steinem
trb@stag.UUCP ( Todd Burkey ) (12/31/87)
In article <1009@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes: >In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP> samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >>Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software >>system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, >>which is then posted for the world to use, for free? > >Answer 1: The programmer is a student, and developed the software on >university hardware. Regulations forbid it being sold. > >Answer 2: The programmer doesn't believe in fleecing people. > Answer 3: The programmer knows that if it is marketted, only 1% of the people out there will actually get to use it. I am getting ready to release a product called HDSCAN to comp.sources.misc as shareware. This is a product that I have out for the Atari ST which I ported over to my Symmetrics (BSD) box out of simple necessity. Basically, HDSCAN is a directory tree peruser, with some of the best features of programs like XTREE, 1DIR, SWEEP, and other PC programs. I treat it as a tool for cleaning up directories, re-organizing my hard disk, performing incremental backups, performing operations on groups of files scattered across partitions, etc. Actually, there is one other nice feature of shareware that I have found pleasing on the Atari ST...you get lots of nice letters from people thanking you for the program. Positive feedback is probably the best reward to shareware. I do have to agree with a previous poster, however, in that the days of making a living from a shareware program are pretty much gone. Oh yes...hdscan will also run on SysVr2 and SysVr3. -Todd Burkey trb@stag.UUCP
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (12/31/87)
In article <2610@killer.UUCP> jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: >Consider a package we have here which is `Shareware'. The author expects >$35 if you like it. Well, I don't think the damned thing is worth $35. >Ten or fifteen dollars maybe, but not thirtyfive. So send the guy ten or fifteen dollars, with a note explaining that you only thought it was worth that much, and why. He'll be grateful (believe me!) for the money, or ANY money for that matter, and just might try and make improvements based on your suggestion. If the $35 was to register the software, and get fancy manuals, you might not get them, but you will have registered your opinion in the best way I can think of - by way of the pocketbook. Most of the shareware I've seen has the line "Suggested Donation" in there somewhere. I take this to mean that I'm not required to give them that much if I don't think the package was worth it. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
nick@nswitgould.OZ (Nick Andrew) (12/31/87)
in article <2377@dasys1.UUCP>, samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) says: > > Perhaps the original developer of the shareware/freeware concept made a > killing because he did it at the right time. I do not think that it works > anymore. > > Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software > system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, > which is then posted for the world to use, for free? > -- > Dominick Samperi, Manhattan College, New York, NY > ...!ihnp4!cmcl2!manhat!samperi > ...!ihnp4!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!samperi
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (12/31/87)
I am responsible for two pieces of shareware: Menu Clock (the current
version is 3.1) and Calendar (the current version version is 2.0) both
for the Macintosh.
I gross an average of $5.00 a day from my shareware, and for each check
I receive I mail the user a disk with the current versions of the
shareware. My costs for materials, labor, and post box rental mean
that my profit is quite small, not to mention the inconvenience to me
in the form of early morning phone calls, from customers who want to
praise me, or get my help.
Unfortunately, I picked a price too low to include the cost of selling, so
no retailer can afford to carry it. The price is also too low to include
the cost of an employee, so I must do all the work myself.
I used to offer complete source, on request, on condition that all changes
be reported back to me for incorporation into the "official" version.
Since not a single person returned any changes to me, I don't offer source
anymore. My reputation rests on the quality of my work. Inferior
imitations based on my work make me furious, particularly if they confuse
ordinary people, making them believe I did a shoddy job.
I have also written a few clever hacks, which are pretty to look at, but
not strictly _useful_ to anybody. Since I believe in value for money, I
don't ask for anything for these.
Why do I do it?
0.) It has much less stigma in the Macintosh end of the net. People there
seem to feel that an author asking for money is just part of his freedom
of speech.
1.) I have expenses. I am not rich. I can't afford to give my work away.
2.) I wanted to learn about running a small business without going many
tens of thousands of dollars into debt raising working capital.
3.) if you hire a publisher to publish your work (obviously publishers
have a different perspective on this relationship: they think they are
hiring you.) You'll pay about $0.80 out of every dollar your software
makes the publisher for the priviledge. The publisher's expenses in turn
mean that there is a lot of good, small software, that no-one can afford
to conventionally publish.
but mostly:
4.) a check in the mail is a _very_ sincere form of fan mail. I'm glad
that people like my stuff enough to pay for it, and I like to hear what
they'd like to see in the future. (It is particularly a kick to get a fan
letter from someone I respect.)
If you don't like my stuff, if you don't like me, or if you don't like my
requesting money, you won't pay me. But, I like living in a world where
people send me fan mail with money in it.
My most recent posting is public domain: it animates a ball bouncing
around an endlessly rising staircase, with accompanying endlessly rising
music. It requires the host computer have a 4 voice sound system (the
Macinotosh does.) I know they taught us in class that all computers are
Turing-equivalent, but I have yet to see a Turing machine with a 4 voice
sound system.
--- David Phillip Oster --A Sun 3/60 makes a poor Macintosh II.
Arpa: oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu --A Macintosh II makes a poor Sun 3/60.
Uucp: {uwvax,decvax,ihnp4}!ucbvax!oster%dewey.soe.berkeley.eduallbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (01/01/88)
As quoted from <1009@ubc-vision.UUCP> by majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka): +--------------- | In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP> samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: | >Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software | >system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, | >which is then posted for the world to use, for free? | | Answer 1: The programmer is a student, and developed the software on | university hardware. Regulations forbid it being sold. | | Answer 2: The programmer doesn't believe in fleecing people. +--------------- Answer 3: The programmer wrote the program for some specific purpose; after the program has fulfilled that purpose, the programmer decides to see if anyone else might be able to use it. Since the program has already "paid for itself", the programmer sees no reason to charge for it. This motivates many of my (personal) sources postings. -- Brandon S. Allbery, Moderator of comp.sources.misc {hoptoad,harvard!necntc,cbosgd,sun!mandrill!hal,uunet!hnsurg3}!ncoast!allbery [This space reserved for future quotes and similar brain twisters.]
nate@cpocd2.UUCP (Nathan Hess) (01/05/88)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP> samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software >system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, >which is then posted for the world to use, for free? One way to get an extended answer to this question is to read "The GNU Manifesto" written by RMS. A short, partial answer is that one can learn the most, and debug/enhance a program the fastest by trying to provide it (ie., the source) to the widest possible audience. --woodstock -- "How did you get your mind to tilt like your hat?" ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb|pur-ee|qantel|amd}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!nate <domainish> : nate@cpocd2.intel.com ATT : (602) 961-2037
limes%ouroborous@Sun.COM (Greg Limes) (01/07/88)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP>, samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: > Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software > system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, > which is then posted for the world to use, for free? Dominick, if you have to ask you will never understand :-) I, for one, get great joy out of producing a good piece of software and having many other people use it. In a way, it is grabbing a small handful of fame in a group of people you respect and who, after running your program, probably respect you; plus, if someone sees a better way of doing something, you may get the joy of watching your program grow (or shrink), get better, faster, have features added, and so on. Or, a subroutine may be particularly well done, and you may see it crop up in other people's code -- always a nice surprise. Shareware is a little trickier than Freeware in this case; people are less likely to lift code, and are less likely to admit so when they do. On the other hand, it can mean pocket change; and, after all, money is a universal symbol in our culture for appreciation of value received. Greg Limes ARPA: limes@sun.com UUCP: ..!ucbvax!sun!limes Disclaimer: I do not speak for Sun Microsystems, they hire other people to do that.
jim@coplex.UUCP (Jim Sewell) (01/08/88)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP>, samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: > Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software > system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, > which is then posted for the world to use, for free? Forgive me if this has been stated before, the large volume of net-noise 8-) makes it hard to read all articles. A real good reason I can think of to develop Shareware is that since the author can Copyright the code, pre-release versions can be circulated as a sort of alpha test. This will do a couple of things: 1. Give good code to those too cheap to support you 8-) 2. Expose your product (and thus make your program well known.) 3. Allow the multitudes to point out subtle bugs and suggest some improvements you had not thought of or overlooked. 4. Give you some money to buy new blank development disks 8-) Besides, it follows the hacker spirit! ============================================================================== Jim Sewell "Make knowledge free!"
wilber@alice.UUCP (01/10/88)
In article <2377@dasys1.UUCP>, samperi@dasys1.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: > Question: What motivates a programmer to develop a large complex software > system, perhaps requiring many weeks (or even years) of development effort, > which is then posted for the world to use, for free? Why would a musician ever play for free? To make the world a slightly better place, maybe?
manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) (01/12/88)
In article <7606@alice.UUCP> wilber@alice.UUCP writes: >Why would a musician ever play for free? To make the world a slightly >better place, maybe? Speaking as a professional musician I don't know of any musicians who play for free as a matter of choice or philosophy. Even the original Freeware policy explanation states that it wasn't an experiment in altruism but mainly one of economics. The cost of commercially marketing a program is just too high for most independent programmers. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------- + Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. NYC + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + uunet!iuvax!bsu-cs!zoo-hq!magpie!manes 300/1200/2400
rroot@edm.UUCP (uucp) (01/12/88)
One of the reason why there's a lot of really good UNIX software out there
is that it is (effectively) a REQUIREMENT of those people who have an
educational source license. The license that we have seems to say that any
states that any software developed on a machine with an educational license
MUST BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. Once you realize that you have something that
you'd like to sell, you can then move your development to a non-educational
machine, but anything up to that point must be made available.
In addition, Universities also have policies that require/encourage
students to release any useful work they do whether or not it required by
such a license.
--
-------------
Stephen Samuel
{ihnp4,ubc-vision,seismo!mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!stevewolfe@pdnan1.UUCP (Mike Wolfe) (01/16/88)
In article <2530@dasys1.UUCP> manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) writes: >In article <7606@alice.UUCP> wilber@alice.UUCP writes: >>Why would a musician ever play for free? To make the world a slightly >>better place, maybe? > >Speaking as a professional musician I don't know of any musicians who >play for free as a matter of choice or philosophy. Even the original You say that you don't know any musicians who play for both work and play? I know plenty, they might not play a real gig for free (Night Club, etc) but would play a party in a second. Because they *ENJOY* what they do, they didn't get into music for the money but you need money to live so they also have the luxury of doing something they love for a living. Granted that work may not leave you as much time for fun. Relpace musician with programmer and play with program in the above and you have what I think is the answer to the orginal question (what was it anyway :-). Of course if someone has to ask why anyone would want to do things for free they wouldn't understand the answer anyway. ---- \_/ {_} {_} {H} Mike Wolfe Paradyne Corporation {E} {gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!wolfe Mail stop LF-207 {L} Phone: (813) 530-8566 PO Box 2826 {P} 8550 Ulmerton Road {_} Largo, FL 34649-2826 {_} "From deep inside the belly of the worm"