[forum] Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Ed Cogburn]

Jay Cotton wrote:
> mark kandianis wrote:
> 
> having no fees means more development not less.  i i wish the us
> government would pick up on that idea they seem to think that more
> fees is more services, boy are they foolish.
> 
> mark.
> 
> 
> um.  Mark, software costs money,


Um, JC, not necessarily...


> it does not matter where it comes from or who writes it.


It most certainly does.  If the software comes from MS it definitely costs 
money, but FOSS, depending on the software and who's using it, often doesn't 
cost a dime.


 > If its to be Open Source, then, it has to be packaged tested and deployed.


Since when?  You speak like the devotee of conventional, shrink-wrapped 
software, yet most FOSS is Net-based, with no "packaging" or significant 
"deployment" costs involved, and testing is often just a community effort 
among the software's users, not a business expense.


 > The maintenance must be done also.  You can rely on Open Source for
> maintenance, but you have to pay someone to get the free work done.


Well that depends really on the specific software.  A lot of FOSS software is 
maintained by its user community, where the "maintenance" is essentially done 
for free.  Of course, if you have special needs that few others share, then 
you may have to put your own effort into modifying the software for your 
purposes, but that really goes beyond the usual meaning of "maintenance".


>  From my point of view, there is no such thing as 'free', lower cost
> maybe, not free.


Well, at least your opinion is consistent with your employer's position.  :)


> A point, would you work full time for nothing ?


No, and few would, yet plenty of FOSS exists, so there is a problem somewhere 
with your point.  At the very least, there are lots of folks willing to work 
*part-time* for what you call "nothing", although they usually have some 
specific reason(s) for doing so, and the fact they continue to do this 
suggests they are getting *something* out of it.

Your perspective makes sense from a corporate point of view, where FOSS is a 
low-cost resource to be exploited, but not the FOSS community, who often use 
the term "free" without ever intending that reference to be about money.

X.org's change is simply a recognition of the fact that their "product" is now 
supported by the FOSS community as much as it is by X.org's old-guard 
corporate backers, and fees are a hindrance to more active support from the 
FOSS community.  Apparently, even if X.org's corporate backers agree with you 
that "[all] software costs money", they appear to be admitting that they can't 
afford to continue their work in the "conventional" fashion any more, and are 
moving closer to the FOSS community for assistance.  Which just casts more 
doubt on the "[all] software costs money" theory.