I can appreciate all that you have said. One thing that comes to mind
concerning all of the positive things you have said about OS is that it
could also apply to Trustware just as easily. I'll have to look closer
perhaps, but I don't see any benefit you mentioned that Trustware wouldn't
afford an equal standing with.

FWIW,
Jason Wharton
CPS - Mesa AZ
http://www.ibobjects.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Peter Mugaas" <oma00215@...>
To: <IBObjects@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [IBO] Trustware vs. OS (was: Re: Open Source Marathon)


> On 7 May 2001, at 8:31, Jason Wharton wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > As far as I can tell, Trustware is the only model where developers
> > receive any kind of monetary reward.
>
> I did not mean to sound anti-money making or Anti-business. I do
> mean to say everything should be free and Open Source (far from
> it). I also do not mean to completely blast your ideals. Open
> Source is definately not a panacea at all in spite of what some
> people say.
>
> There are non-monitary incentives. What I meant by not directly
> from the code is that there are indirect ways of making money. For
> example, Indy helps get the "Nevrona Designs" out which leads to
> more sales of other products. In addition, Indy as a great
> networking library is used in some commercial Nevrona Designs
> products. Also, right now, I am helping with an Open Source
> project called ICE which will benefit some other commercial things.
> ICE is an installation framework (the Youseful software under an
> Open Source effort). One reason my boss was interested in
> helping with it is so that he could have something for automated
> installs of some future Nevrona products. In addition, other
> programmer could expand on it eventually to fit there needs and
> everyone benefits from this even though no money changes hands.
> Also remember that some money could be made with books and
> support contracts. Also, some prioritary software can be build
> under some Open Source licenses such as BSD or MPL.
>
> There are some reasons why people will choose to make
> something Open Source.
>
> A) They are making money in other ways
> B) The person is doing it out of their ideals
> C) Some commercial products went Open Source because the
> developers were not making enough from sales and licensing but
> they still wanted the product to be developed to meat demands
> (remember that there other factors besides Open Source which
> cause business losses such as decreasing demand, a fixed
> market size, compition, freeware authors, and pirates).
> D) A developer's priorities may have changed
>
> IAgain, let me point out though that Open Source is definately not
> for everything particularly as developers have to make money, and
> the thing uses too much which is licensed from others.
>
> Again, let me say that I am not against commercial programs,
> trustware, shareware, and making money off of your work.