merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) (08/17/89)
In article <NELSON.89Aug15224611@sun.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun (Russ Nelson) writes: | One free-market solution is to insist upon payment *before* the creation | of the software. This requires that the programmer have a reputation for | delivering the goods. For example, if rms were to ask everyone for a | $100 contribution so that he could sit down and work uninterrupted on | the GNU Kernel, I believe that he would get many, many hundreds of dollars. | Certainly *I* would break open the piggy bank. | | He could, for example, estimate that it would take him six months to | write a kernel. He might reasonably expect to make $15,000 to $20,000 | in that time by doing his normal consulting. Therefore, he would need | 150 to 200 contributions. Of course, there would be a deadline for | the contributions to arrive. If he didn't get that many by the | deadline, he would send them back. He could set up an escrow account | to store the money during the time the contributions were arriving. | | This ensures that people will either get the software they have paid | for, or else they will get their money back. And if the deadline and | the amount of contributions still needed are well known, then people | who want the software will know that they either have to dig deeper, | or rough up their friends. :-) | | There could even be a deadline for completion of the software. If the | deadline is missed, then the money in escrow (or a portion thereof) | would be returned. | | One advantage is that it reduces the risk that the programmer takes. He | is guaranteed a given amount of money if he completes the software. It | also guarantees that he would not be able to get rich. Or, even better, suppose we could have Big Daddy Warbucks (BDW) provide the "escrow" services, and collect the contributions against an amount provided "up-front" to RMS. We'd all send in our contributions to BDW, who had already given the full amount to RMS so he could get started. BDW could also handle the distribution of the resulting software, and possibly take a small portion of the "contributions" as a "handling and distribution charge". Of course, to solicit contributions, BDW would advertise and promote RMS's latest creation-in-progress through freebie articles (a.k.a. reviews) and advertising. Congratulations... you've just reinvented the software publisher. Isn't the free market amazing? I hate software hoarding, but I also like to get paid for what I do (funny thing, because I have bills to pay, ya know...). I think there's enough room in the free market for both methods: proprietary software generated by for-hire wizards, and "free" software generated by (possibly uncompensated) wizards. Let the market decide. Why make either a "bad thing"? Just an opinion (what group is this, anyway? :-)... -- /== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ====\ | on contract to Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/
tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas Kunselman) (08/19/89)
Thought you all might be interested in this quote from a Scientific
American article, August, 1989 V261 No.2, page 66 'The Metamorphosis
of Information Management. Written by David Gelernter, an associate
professor of computer science at Yale University.
The quote:
"...Processing large volumes of data in sophisticated ways might take
weeks or months.
"The increased computing power offered by parallel hardware offers some
help, but a more important problem remains: building sophisticated
software for information management is an inordinately complex task.
Few organizations have the time and money, and even fewer the expertise,
to do so. Most of the projects undertaken so far are at universities or
other research institutions that lack the resources to turn
their prototypes into finished, widely used systems. A Department of
Public Software Works may ultimately be needed to build the massive
information refineries the U.S. could use."
Software development subsidy seems to be an idea that is getting more
and more support.
--
Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek
Office of Institutional Research bitnet: tek@ukma.bitnet
Kentucky State University internet: tek@ms.uky.edu
Frankfort, KY 40601 Educate, Don't Legislate! bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/21/89)
In article <12439@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas Kunselman) writes: In <v261no2p66@scientific-american.paper>, David Gelernter (gelertner@cs/yale.edu) writes: "...A Department of Public Software Works may ultimately be needed to build the massive information refineries the U.S. could use." Software development subsidy seems to be an idea that is getting more and more support. I worry about this for the same reason that I worry about the "prayer in schools" issue, that also seems to be getting a lot of support. While I want my children to pray, I don't want the government teaching them when, in what manner, and (perhaps next) what and to whom they should pray. Similarly, the government has proved a good way to fund certain sorts of research, but I wouldn't want it to take over responsibility (and corresponding authority) for everything.
peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) (08/21/89)
[part of a quotation dealing with scale problems of developing large database systems deleted] >Few organizations have the time and money, and even fewer the expertise, >to do so. . . .A Department of >Public Software Works may ultimately be needed to build the massive >information refineries the U.S. could use." > If we start now, there should be at least 350 Ashton-Tate folks ready to contribute their database expertise. To manage these folks, several thousand employees of the old savings and loan regulatory system are available. What more could you want to guarantee success of nationalized software development? -- ----------------- Peter Palij uunet!apexepa!peter Apex Software Corporation peter@apexepa.uucp Phone: (412) 681-4343
jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) (08/22/89)
> Software development subsidy seems to be an idea that is getting more > and more support. Maybe free software should be like our highways: no one would suggest that they are 'free of cost', but everyone is free to use them as they see fit, as long as it doesn't stop others from doing the same. Society (at some level) assumes the cost of creating/maintaining them since 'freedom of use' is crucial to productivity. <Joe -- Joe Smith University of Pennsylvania jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics (215) 898-8348 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6059
peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) (08/24/89)
In article <JES.89Aug21160815@mbio.med.upenn.edu> jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) writes: > >> Software development subsidy seems to be an idea that is getting more >> and more support. > >Maybe free software should be like our highways: no one would suggest >that they are 'free of cost', but everyone is free to use them as they >see fit, as long as it doesn't stop others from doing the same. >Society (at some level) assumes the cost of creating/maintaining them >since 'freedom of use' is crucial to productivity. > > Joe Smith > University of Pennsylvania jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu Humm, interesting analogy. Except that people aren't free to use the highways as they see fit. The State licences drivers, vehicles, and charges use taxes. They even have special police forces to enforce rules. I can see it now. First I'll get my computer license, then my users permit, they every time I fire up some software I'll have my credit card billed for maintenance fees! Sounds like nirvana to me... -- michael peirce, for profit software developer
jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) (08/24/89)
> Except that people aren't free to use the highways as they see fit.
The purpose for the restrictions is to keep the resource (roads)
useable by everyone (cynicism aside :-)) by reducing irresponsible
behavior. Even 'GNU-free' software has restrictions.
I don't want to carry this too far - like any analogy, this breaks
down at some point. There are lots of resources considered important
enough for society to subsidize a significant fraction of the costs,
especially start up costs. Interestingly, all the examples I can
think of co-exist with various privately funded alternatives which
cover more specialized niches.
<Joe
--
Joe Smith
University of Pennsylvania jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu
Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics (215) 898-8348
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6059jim@THRUSH.STANFORD.EDU (Jim Helman) (08/25/89)
jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) writes:
There are lots of resources considered important enough for
society to subsidize a significant fraction of the costs,
especially start up costs. Interestingly, all the examples I
can think of co-exist with various privately funded
alternatives which cover more specialized niches.
Yep. Free and commercial developments are not by any means mutually
exclusive. In my opinion, the GNU effort is worthy of receiving
subsidies from government, universities and industry. And in various
forms, mostly through donation or use of equipment, it apparently has
been receiving such assistance.
The difficult question is whether this should be formalized on a large
scale, e.g. a software tax. The proper allocation of resources for
building highways is relatively obvious given the existence of major
cities and traffic patterns, but the choice of proper directions in
"free" software development is not. Government usually screws up when
it allocates resources for problems where the solutions are not
completely apparent, and frequently even when they are. (You can
tell, I'm no socialist.) I don't think a National Software
Foundataion could ever do an adequate job of it, besides which the
acronym NSF is already taken.
Perhaps, some government subsidized programs are in order, e.g. the
existing NSF funding FSF, but privately funded development by software
hoarders out for a profit will always be around, and thank God (or
human nature) for it. The more the merrier.
Jim Helman
Department of Applied Physics P.O. Box 10494
Stanford University Stanford, CA 94309
(jim@thrush.stanford.edu) (415) 723-4940 phssra@mathcs.emory.edu (Scott R. Anderson) (08/25/89)
In article <8908241902.AA02325@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >In my opinion, the GNU effort is worthy of receiving >subsidies from government, universities and industry. And in various >forms, mostly through donation or use of equipment, it apparently has >been receiving such assistance.... >Perhaps, some government subsidized programs are in order, e.g. the >existing NSF funding FSF, but privately funded development by software >hoarders out for a profit will always be around, and thank God (or >human nature) for it. The more the merrier. The National Science Foundation already supports software development in various ways (as do other government agencies such as DARPA). What they actually try to fund is *research* in computer science, e.g. development of new algorithms. This information is then public domain. Often, an application of this research, i.e. software, is concomitant, but otherwise it is left to software companies to apply the research and produce new software. This is a Reagan-inspired emphasis which could be changed. So, it seems to me, a "government subsidized program" is already in place; it just needs more money. I'm sure that some would find its way to FSF if it was there; after all, Texas Instruments and other non-university organizations have research branches which receive government grants. The support in this country for scientific and engineering research is in general extremely underfunded, and it's going to take a lot of political effort to get it to rise to a reasonable level. * * ** Scott Robert Anderson gatech!emoryu1!phssra * * * ** phssra@unix.cc.emory.edu phssra@emoryu1.bitnet * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (08/28/89)
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])|(70441.205@compuserve.com)|
(Russ.Nelson@f360.n260.z1.fidonet.org)|(BH01@GEnie.com :-)nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (08/28/89)
In article <8908241902.AA02325@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> jim@THRUSH.STANFORD.EDU (Jim Helman) writes:
Government usually screws up when it allocates resources for
problems where the solutions are not completely apparent, and
frequently even when they are. (You can tell, I'm no socialist.)
This carries with it the implication that government ownership (i.e.
socialism) carries with it the abandonment of free market principles.
This is incorrect, as there are examples of socialism that place
certain constraints on the free market[1]. The market is then free to
seek its own level. This is the complete reverse of total government
planning (read "straw man").
[1] This sounds contradictory. However, any "free" market already
has constraints on it - little things like no theft, no slavery.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])|(70441.205@compuserve.com)|
(Russ.Nelson@f360.n260.z1.fidonet.org)|(BH01@GEnie.com :-)