Well Nick. As so many people have pointed out before 'free' and 'opensource' is not the same thing. Yes, once you have the product, there isn't much to stop you from making a new version, but then you end up being the one that has to support all the changes you make. In any case, a lot of people are making money off opensource, and not all of them are giving away the entire thing. A good example is RedHat or Linspire. RedHat provides a free version, but without a lot of new features in RedHat. Linspire you can't even 'get' a copy of without buying it, but except for their improved click-and-run version of aptget, there is nothing they have done that a decent tech couldn't build themselves. They make money by providing a clueless newbie version that comes increasingly closer to the MS level of ease of use, without the unfortunate tendency that MS has of assuming everyone is a total idiot who doesn't need anything beyond what their interface allows.
There is a *big* different between opensource and freeware. Unfortunately, a lot of people are confused at what that difference is. Think of it this way though. You buy a device from an MS like company. They install a GPS device in it so, the first time you run it, the device becomes permanently fixed to that location (within say 200 feet). You could take the entire thing appart, but you could never sell it, unless it was to your next door neighbor, or you sold the building with it. You buy another device from company B, they use standard parts, design it to interoperate with other things and even provide a schematic. You could add special paint job, duplicate the design, modify it to do new things, etc. (as long as it doesn't breach a patent), and then resell it. At which point it becomes *your* problem if it catches fire, doesn't work, breaks or whatever.
Maybe not a perfect explaination, but it is basically the difference. If your entire business model is based on selling the product, instead of supporting it, then yeah, the difference can appear non-existant. Also, freeware doesn't always mean you can do anything other than run it (i.e. no code available at all), which is also a difference.
Somehow people are making money off of it, and the number of people managing to do so has MS and other companies scared out of their collective wits. After all, MS' *biggest* revenue sources are Windows and Office. Both are threatened by something with which they have no hope to compete, nor can they afford to opensource the product. They can't risk someone else actually managing to fix the problems with the OS and producing something other people will use instead of paying them. What they seem to miss is that in an opensource system there is nothing stopping them from incorporating 'all' of those changes, adding their own and still puting out something with full MS tech support that is better. People will buy that, though probably not at their current prices. Instead they are trying to beat off the only real competition they have ever had with the only sticks they know how to use, lawsuits, FUD and throwing around money.
Apparently no one ever told them that as bad as bringing a knife to a gunfight may be, it is worse to bring a single gun into a crowd of thousands and actually expect them to all run away, instead of throwing rocks. |
![[Go to top]](/images/gototop.gif){kind=small}
top