As reported on cnet: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6954900.html VA Linux is going to sell propietary modules in the SourceForge Enterprise Edition. I guess this is pretty bad for free software, just wanted to alert people of it.
cya,
Wim
On Saturday 25 August 2001 20:56, Wim De Smet wrote:
As reported on cnet: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6954900.html VA Linux is going to sell propietary modules in the SourceForge Enterprise Edition. I guess this is pretty bad for free software, just wanted to alert people of it.
Given the bad situation on the computer market, I guess more and more companies will go back to more classic and therefore "safe" business models. This will be especially true for those companies that jumped on the software libre band wagon just following the wave of Linux popularity.
Investors in Wall Street want just be reassured and IMHO VA Linux is doing that: they're saying "Well, do you guys want us to use a better proven business model? Here we are".
I think this is also bad for the advocates of software libre: it won't be easy now to find successful stories to talk about during conferences, aside some very good old known names :-(
We'll see what happens, though: I still think that it doesn't make any sense to try to sell proprietary extensions to software, but "old" economy rules force new companies to act old way. This is the key, I think... but we go off topic if I start :-))
regards stef (with his natural account down for a short circuit--lost server and backups--damn)
Stefano Maffulli ha scritto:
On Saturday 25 August 2001 20:56, Wim De Smet wrote:
As reported on cnet: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6954900.html VA Linux is going to sell propietary modules in the SourceForge Enterprise Edition. I guess this is pretty bad for free software, just wanted to alert people of it.
Given the bad situation on the computer market, I guess more and more companies will go back to more classic and therefore "safe" business models. This will be especially true for those companies that jumped on the software libre band wagon just following the wave of Linux popularity. Investors in Wall Street want just be reassured and IMHO VA Linux is doing that: they're saying "Well, do you guys want us to use a better proven business model? Here we are". I think this is also bad for the advocates of software libre: it won't be easy now to find successful stories to talk about during conferences, aside some very good old known names :-( We'll see what happens, though: I still think that it doesn't make any sense to try to sell proprietary extensions to software, but "old" economy rules force new companies to act old way. This is the key, I think... but we go off topic if I start :-))
Good analisys, but there is something missing, the problem is not "yeah my company is doing free software so the investors are preoccupied", the problem is that the "old economy" is trying to put the "free software economy" out of his market (this is a big problem and not only on the software).
In the free software economy is a bad thing to ave a big company like "VA" trying to put money on the free software and obtain something like a typical "old economy" result, money and proprietary extensions (jump on the free software train just following the wave of Linux popularity can be something like this).
IMHO this is only a signal, the business model of the old economy cannot be mixed with the new model, this with big company, where Wall Street is important and when Wall Street dont wants the new model :-)
The great successful history is "nobody can delete the freedom of the software, if the software is free", VA can do proprietary extensions, someone in the world can do the same proprietary extensions in free software.
:-)
Massimo Nuvoli wrote:
Stefano Maffulli ha scritto:
On Saturday 25 August 2001 20:56, Wim De Smet wrote:
As reported on cnet: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6954900.html VA Linux is going to sell propietary modules in the SourceForge
Enterprise
Edition. I guess this is pretty bad for free software, just wanted to
alert
people of it.
Given the bad situation on the computer market, I guess more and more companies will go back to more classic and therefore "safe" business
models.
This will be especially true for those companies that jumped on the
software
libre band wagon just following the wave of Linux popularity. Investors in Wall Street want just be reassured and IMHO VA Linux is
doing
that: they're saying "Well, do you guys want us to use a better proven business model? Here we are". I think this is also bad for the advocates of software libre: it won't
be
easy now to find successful stories to talk about during conferences,
aside
some very good old known names :-( We'll see what happens, though: I still think that it doesn't make any
sense
to try to sell proprietary extensions to software, but "old" economy
rules
force new companies to act old way. This is the key, I think... but we
go off
topic if I start :-))
Good analisys, but there is something missing, the problem is not "yeah my company is doing free software so the investors are preoccupied", the
problem is
that the "old economy" is trying to put the "free software economy" out of
his
market (this is a big problem and not only on the software).
Off course, it also has something to do with the fact that numerous companies went out of business the past months. Investor trust is hard to find, and a conservative business model is the way VA Linux is trying to convince them to stick with it.
In the free software economy is a bad thing to ave a big company like "VA"
trying
to put money on the free software and obtain something like a typical "old economy" result, money and proprietary extensions (jump on the free
software
train just following the wave of Linux popularity can be something like
this).
IMHO this is only a signal, the business model of the old economy cannot
be mixed
with the new model, this with big company, where Wall Street is important
and
when Wall Street dont wants the new model :-)
The great successful history is "nobody can delete the freedom of the
software,
if the software is free", VA can do proprietary extensions, someone in the
world
can do the same proprietary extensions in free software.
:-)
greets,
Wim
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 07:37:23PM +0200, Wim De Smet wrote:
Good analisys, but there is something missing, the problem is not "yeah my company is doing free software so the investors are preoccupied", the problem is that the "old economy" is trying to put the "free software economy" out of his market (this is a big problem and not only on the software).
Off course, it also has something to do with the fact that numerous companies went out of business the past months. Investor trust is hard to find, and a conservative business model is the way VA Linux is trying to convince them to stick with it.
Am I the only one not scared by this? I agree with your technical analysis, but there are some profound implications. I found ESR's explanation poor to the point of me losing what little respect I have left for his ideas, in that I find his arguments weaken with every thing he publishes (the idea of furbage I thought missed the point and begged the question; his explanation of VA's 'change of tactic' is little more than a tacit admission of defeat).
What is particularly galling is that no-one seems to be coming out saying how bad this is - OSDN in particular (vested interests, I know) seems to be becoming more and more anti-Free Software. The fact of the matter is that to attempt to please investors, VA are developing closed applications. Let's buy ESR's explanation, and call it proprietary tinsel. And let's assume it does very well. What do investors learn from this lesson? That closing software makes more money. So the pressure to produce more closed apps will be applied: investors will see no line, no law of diminishing returns. They will keep pressing for more closure until they stop seeing the benefits, and probably beyond.
Even animals, at a very basic level, learn by reward. VA closes app, VA gets a cookie as a reward. Good VA. Investors want more of the same. They want more cookies. Sad, very sad.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 07:37:23PM +0200, Wim De Smet wrote:
Good analisys, but there is something missing, the problem is not "yeah my company is doing free software so the investors are preoccupied", the problem is that the "old economy" is trying to put the "free software economy" out of his market (this is a big problem and not only on the software).
Off course, it also has something to do with the fact that numerous companies went out of business the past months. Investor trust is hard to find, and a conservative business model is the way VA Linux is trying to convince them to stick with it.
Am I the only one not scared by this?
Actually I find it funny!
I agree with your technical analysis, but there are some profound implications. I found ESR's explanation poor to the point of me losing what little respect I have left for his ideas, in that I find his arguments weaken with every thing he publishes (the idea of furbage I thought missed the point and begged the question; his explanation of VA's 'change of tactic' is little more than a tacit admission of defeat).
Avoiding freedom made his thought poor and weak sinche the beginning of the open source definition.
What is particularly galling is that no-one seems to be coming out saying how bad this is - OSDN in particular (vested interests, I know) seems to be becoming more and more anti-Free Software. The fact of the matter is that to attempt to please investors, VA are developing closed applications. Let's buy ESR's explanation, and call it proprietary tinsel. And let's assume it does very well. What do investors learn from this lesson? That closing software makes more money.
I'd wait to see if this 'change of tactic' is going to let VA investors making the money they would like. This is yet to be demonstrated.
Anyway, in the ESR tale (http://www.linux.com/opinion/newsitem.phtml?sid=1&aid=12507) the 'middle manager' that buys that 'proprietary tinsel' will be _forever_ tied to _that_ supplier, payng him for every and each 'tinsel' to the 'proprietary tinsel'. Furthermore it is likely that his 'proprietary tinsel' doesn't well interact with 'proprietary tinsels' from other suppliers [1]. Try to imagine what whould happen if all 'middle managers' (all the users in general) is not that kind of ignorant about information tecnology to realise that it is not reasonable to give away the freedom for what they call 'proprietary tinsel', especially when there is an alternative that gives you freedom 1 and freedom 3 (see http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ;-) ). And what about - after the 'middle manager' computes the total cost of ownership of the 'proprietary tinsel' in 10 years [2] - he realizes that it costs _very much_ less to ask for a free software 'tinsel' to an organization willing to sell him? And what about if an entire category of 'middle managers' starts to ask their company to join their investments to produce a free software 'tinsel' (that works very well with their other free software 'tinsel' for their amazing interconnection features) that fit the category needs, decreasing in that way with an exponential rate the total cost of ownership? Maybe one day users will realize all that, and to sell free software will be much more convenient than proprietary one.
The moral of the tale is that free software freedoms are convenient to the users, while taking away that freedoms is convenient to those who like to make money on the lack of that freedoms. It's up to the users to understand what free software freedoms really means.
Im am also persuaded that in a free software environment thare are still very much ways to do business.
So the pressure to produce more closed apps will be applied: investors will see no line, no law of diminishing returns. They will keep pressing for more closure until they stop seeing the benefits, and probably beyond.
Just what happened around '80... an old story.
Even animals, at a very basic level, learn by reward. VA closes app, VA gets a cookie as a reward. Good VA. Investors want more of the same. They want more cookies.
Users decides to give or not to give the money for that cookies.
Sad, very sad.
The very problem is to increase the overall information tecnology culture.
Hard, very hard ;-)
Cheers,
Alex.
CiaoG Giovanni.
[1] suppliers of 'proprietary tinsels' often tends to avoid interconnection with 'proprietary tinsels' from other suppliers to try to reach a commanding position in the market. Proprietary file formats are just an example of this strategy.
[2] we should agree upon the fact that the lack of interconnection with the rest of our information tecnology infrastructure is a cost. How does it costs to input two times the same data (a very common situation)into two non interconnected softwares for 10 years?