Comments on: How free software makes money! http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/ Brajeshwar believes in simplicity; pushes the envelop and envisions the betterment of usable and practical solutions. Tue, 15 May 2012 16:44:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: skforussia.ru http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-31238 skforussia.ru Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:41:00 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-31238 Very nice, thanks for sharing. Very nice, thanks for sharing.

]]> By: David http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-25945 David Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:52:43 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-25945 What if it's a piece of software that doesn't need support like a database service, or an operating system, just a program like winzip, or something like that, why make it free, no one will ever contact you for support, and if they do, is not going to be enough to pay the bills. I understand projects and learning and community stuff, but there seems to be a flaw in not charging for the software at all. What if it's a piece of software that doesn't need support like a database service, or an operating system, just a program like winzip, or something like that, why make it free, no one will ever contact you for support, and if they do, is not going to be enough to pay the bills.
I understand projects and learning and community stuff, but there seems to be a flaw in not charging for the software at all.

]]> By: David http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-30086 David Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:52:00 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-30086 What if it's a piece of software that doesn't need support like a database service, or an operating system, just a program like winzip, or something like that, why make it free, no one will ever contact you for support, and if they do, is not going to be enough to pay the bills. I understand projects and learning and community stuff, but there seems to be a flaw in not charging for the software at all. What if it's a piece of software that doesn't need support like a database service, or an operating system, just a program like winzip, or something like that, why make it free, no one will ever contact you for support, and if they do, is not going to be enough to pay the bills.
I understand projects and learning and community stuff, but there seems to be a flaw in not charging for the software at all.

]]> By: David R http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-25522 David R Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:55:06 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-25522 This post is lame. Just because a software publisher is asking for money for the software doesn't mean he is "evil". It just means he wants money to earn from his work just like a book writer wants to earn money from his writings. Just because the software isn't opened it doesn't mean it steals credit cards. In fact i never heard of one single software publisher that did that. That is a rubbish comment from you. Giving a software for free doesn't generate any money. The only ones that make money are the big ones, Google (they call them software, i'd call them web pages), Mozilla (taking money from Google), Sun (real software, but struggling). A smaller company that doesn't have such a large public will make $0. Not all software require support and noone guarantees you that people will ask for support from the company that produces it. This post is lame. Just because a software publisher is asking for money for the software doesn't mean he is "evil". It just means he wants money to earn from his work just like a book writer wants to earn money from his writings.

Just because the software isn't opened it doesn't mean it steals credit cards. In fact i never heard of one single software publisher that did that. That is a rubbish comment from you.

Giving a software for free doesn't generate any money. The only ones that make money are the big ones, Google (they call them software, i'd call them web pages), Mozilla (taking money from Google), Sun (real software, but struggling). A smaller company that doesn't have such a large public will make $0. Not all software require support and noone guarantees you that people will ask for support from the company that produces it.

]]> By: David R http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-30085 David R Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:55:00 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-30085 This post is lame. Just because a software publisher is asking for money for the software doesn't mean he is "evil". It just means he wants money to earn from his work just like a book writer wants to earn money from his writings. Just because the software isn't opened it doesn't mean it steals credit cards. In fact i never heard of one single software publisher that did that. That is a rubbish comment from you. Giving a software for free doesn't generate any money. The only ones that make money are the big ones, Google (they call them software, i'd call them web pages), Mozilla (taking money from Google), Sun (real software, but struggling). A smaller company that doesn't have such a large public will make $0. Not all software require support and noone guarantees you that people will ask for support from the company that produces it. This post is lame. Just because a software publisher is asking for money for the software doesn't mean he is "evil". It just means he wants money to earn from his work just like a book writer wants to earn money from his writings.

Just because the software isn't opened it doesn't mean it steals credit cards. In fact i never heard of one single software publisher that did that. That is a rubbish comment from you.

Giving a software for free doesn't generate any money. The only ones that make money are the big ones, Google (they call them software, i'd call them web pages), Mozilla (taking money from Google), Sun (real software, but struggling). A smaller company that doesn't have such a large public will make $0. Not all software require support and noone guarantees you that people will ask for support from the company that produces it.

]]> By: Hector Nicolas http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-23556 Hector Nicolas Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:36:02 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-23556 Nice Article. Very informative! Nice Article. Very informative!

]]> By: Hector Nicolas http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-30084 Hector Nicolas Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:36:00 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-30084 Nice Article. Very informative! Nice Article. Very informative!

]]> By: Tom http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-23501 Tom Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:17:17 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-23501 A better example than you OpenSync is GCC, because not only one company supports it, GCC is supported my Intel, AMD, IBM, Apple etc. Many companys because it is very useful. You also could include Linux, it's a good example. RedHat, Google, IBM, Novel, Astaro, Intel a whole lot of companies support it, and non-profits, eg Linux Foundation. A better example than you OpenSync is GCC, because not only one company supports it, GCC is supported my Intel, AMD, IBM, Apple etc. Many companys because it is very useful.

You also could include Linux, it's a good example. RedHat, Google, IBM, Novel, Astaro, Intel a whole lot of companies support it, and non-profits, eg Linux Foundation.

]]> By: Tom http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-30083 Tom Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:17:00 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-30083 A better example than you OpenSync is GCC, because not only one company supports it, GCC is supported my Intel, AMD, IBM, Apple etc. Many companys because it is very useful. You also could include Linux, it's a good example. RedHat, Google, IBM, Novel, Astaro, Intel a whole lot of companies support it, and non-profits, eg Linux Foundation. A better example than you OpenSync is GCC, because not only one company supports it, GCC is supported my Intel, AMD, IBM, Apple etc. Many companys because it is very useful.

You also could include Linux, it's a good example. RedHat, Google, IBM, Novel, Astaro, Intel a whole lot of companies support it, and non-profits, eg Linux Foundation.

]]> By: Artagnon http://brajeshwar.com/2008/how-free-software-makes-money/#comment-23441 Artagnon Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:06:54 +0000 http://brajeshwar.com/?p=1107#comment-23441 >> First, you say that "Everything is strictly business" and later on say that "Free software promotes sharing, kindness and humanity towards others, which is what Ubuntu the operating system represents" well, which one is it? Both statements are perfectly logically correct. Does business have to represent ruthlessness and inhumanity? :P Ubuntu is made for the community and represents all those things that I said. It doesn't really do business and is just supported by donations. The examples I gave follow a strict business model but they don't operate on the basis of vendor lock-ins. >> Also, it is not fair to say that if I decide to keep my software close-source, I am evil. By this account, Macromedia/Adobe is evil and you shouldn't be evangelizing their products. I don't evangelize their products :) Well, that's a personal opinion. Richard Stallman believes that all software should be free while Eric Raymond feels that proprietary software and free software can co-exist. Who is right? These are just their personal opinions. >> After putting an enormous amount of effort in creating software, why should I also put in lot of creative effort to sell it? I don't personally think it takes a lot more creative effort to monetize free software but that's a personal opinion. You don't have to maintain your software, run into lawsuits because users' computers were fried or keep searching and circumventing cracks for your software if it's free. >> How would you suggest the smaller open source players to monetize their efforts? Good question. If it's a really tiny initiative and doesn't plan to ever be large, it can simply be supported by donations like Vimperator, a Firefox plugin. Other small projects like Conduit, Amarok like do go under umbrella organizations/ being part of a larger project like GNOME/ KDE. >> You give away product and sell services I wouldn't classify double-licensing and dual-versioning under "services". I'm just trying to say that there are lots of ways to monetize a product, not just the price-per-piece model. >> Both of you are doing it to make money and there is nothing evil with either approach. The bottom line is we are all selfish and greedy. And that is fine. That's what makes this world tick. Agreed. Everyone wants to make money. Nothing wrong with that. There's a limit to greed though. If setting up your industry involves burning down half the Amazon forest, I think the business should be stopped immediately. The question at hand is very simple: Is locking up software that big an issue? All I'm trying to say is that there are nicer ways to make money than by vendor lock-ins, spyware and DRM. True, there's a lot of proprietary software that does none of this: Then the question arises "Why? Why lock up the software in the first place then?" >> That's just rubbish. Wow! That was an amazingly constructive comment! You've really given me a lot of room to respond to that. >> First, you say that "Everything is strictly business" and later on say that "Free software promotes sharing, kindness and humanity towards others, which is what Ubuntu the operating system represents" well, which one is it?

Both statements are perfectly logically correct. Does business have to represent ruthlessness and inhumanity? :P Ubuntu is made for the community and represents all those things that I said. It doesn't really do business and is just supported by donations. The examples I gave follow a strict business model but they don't operate on the basis of vendor lock-ins.

>> Also, it is not fair to say that if I decide to keep my software close-source, I am evil. By this account, Macromedia/Adobe is evil and you shouldn't be evangelizing their products.

I don't evangelize their products :)
Well, that's a personal opinion. Richard Stallman believes that all software should be free while Eric Raymond feels that proprietary software and free software can co-exist. Who is right? These are just their personal opinions.

>> After putting an enormous amount of effort in creating software, why should I also put in lot of creative effort to sell it?

I don't personally think it takes a lot more creative effort to monetize free software but that's a personal opinion. You don't have to maintain your software, run into lawsuits because users' computers were fried or keep searching and circumventing cracks for your software if it's free.

>> How would you suggest the smaller open source players to monetize their efforts?

Good question. If it's a really tiny initiative and doesn't plan to ever be large, it can simply be supported by donations like Vimperator, a Firefox plugin. Other small projects like Conduit, Amarok like do go under umbrella organizations/ being part of a larger project like GNOME/ KDE.

>> You give away product and sell services

I wouldn't classify double-licensing and dual-versioning under "services". I'm just trying to say that there are lots of ways to monetize a product, not just the price-per-piece model.

>> Both of you are doing it to make money and there is nothing evil with either approach. The bottom line is we are all selfish and greedy. And that is fine. That's what makes this world tick.

Agreed. Everyone wants to make money. Nothing wrong with that. There's a limit to greed though. If setting up your industry involves burning down half the Amazon forest, I think the business should be stopped immediately. The question at hand is very simple: Is locking up software that big an issue?

All I'm trying to say is that there are nicer ways to make money than by vendor lock-ins, spyware and DRM. True, there's a lot of proprietary software that does none of this: Then the question arises "Why? Why lock up the software in the first place then?"

>> That's just rubbish.

Wow! That was an amazingly constructive comment! You've really given me a lot of room to respond to that.

]]>