Re: Major interview

[Bill Ries-Knight <brk@slip.net>]

Malonowa wrote:

>
>
> What does "Open Source" mean? "Open Source" software is not "free software". I
> think it's very unrealistic to think that any commercial edsoft companies would
> embrace the free software model.
>
> Open source - I'm happy to let users have my source code from commercial apps. as
> long as they don't distribute it. Free software that I do - then that's free
> software and a different ball game altogether.
>

I could suggest that the issue with schools is the cost of a SITE license.  When you
pay upwards of $1000 per school for each of say 30 software titles, that adds up rather
quickly.  It is ENTIRELY possible that this model, with a REDUCED site license, would
be useful in relationship with an OS that did not require a per seat cost.  If you look
at a minimal cost profile for Mirosoft and its planned model:  for the desktop OS, say
$100, PLUS  the Server cost of say $3000 per year, Plus the client acess cost of $50
per seat, PLUS...  The savings in a school with 150 computers could amount to over
$30k per school each year.  That would get the attention of MANY districts.

> There's an argument that a company could use a free product to promote its windows
> and mac versions in heterogenous environments. The problem here is that should
> Linux attain the goal of market saturation then this is no longer viable as a
> marketing strategy.
>

This argument should be reflective of a REDUCED cost model, and lower priced software
should result.

> The question is why should edsoft be "free". Most edsoft isn't all that complicated
> to write, it's the graphics, sounds, educational research, licensing of data and
> overall design which are important. There's really nothing in most titles that
> might imply a stifling of the progression of technology. So how does the "free"
> software model apply? An operating system on the other hand is quite different.
> Freedom is important there since there's an issue of "controlling" users and new
> technology.
>

I'll agree.

>
> As Linux becomes more accepted I think there will be an increase of commercial
> apps. in all areas and not all of them will be "free" or "Open source". Perhaps
> what we'll see is an increase in fairer pricing and licencing conditions rather
> than the "free" model that we've all become used to. It's more likely to assume
> that companies not selling "free" software may invest some of their resources in
> the community in other ways, be that "freeing" some titles or helping community
> projects financially or otherwise.
>
> http://www.rebel.com/ don't they sell little celeron systems quite cheaply?
>
> Roman.

My Argument would be, reduced development tool costs for Linux vs Microsoft or Apple
platforms should result in lower cost product.  This could be used to save money at the
school level.  More unit sales because of lowered unit costs, means more revenue
Happier and healthier Ed-Soft companies.

Bill
.