Linux Today is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Martin Vermeer - Subject: Re: Hey guys, you missed the real kicker. ( Jun 7, 2001, 09:52:54 )
> The problem is not that this guy is a Microsoft shill.
> That's small potatoes.
>
> Did you see that he was technology advisor to a law firm?
> No wonder he says that patents and copyrights are cornerstones of the economy. I'll bet they were walls, ceilings and doors of that Law Firm's economy.
LOL your lawyer's eye hasn't weakened a bit!
...
> By the way--How much of the community really thinks you can make money from GPL'd software other than using it as a tool or as the basis for some value-add?
Well... those are the main business models for money making. Then there is "learning-doing" synergy, like with Cygnus: they work on the gcc, gnu toolchain code, both improving it and learning to serve their embedded customers better. (Of course you could call this value add too.) Then there is "common code" synergy, like selling this year's, freeing last year's; freeing the light, selling the gold version; freeing the binary, selling the templates; dual GPL'ing and commercially selling a library; and many more.
But, the big one: monopoly poisoning! Why do you think Sun bought Star Office and promptly released it under the GPL, and still keeps its personnel working on it? Or why AOL/NS continues to put their own people's effort into Mozilla? Or why HP would already have opensourced OpenMail, if not for that phone call from Redmond complaining how it was "confusing customers" and reminding them of their need for Windows licenses?
Remember, a monopoly means a lack of alternatives. Provide credible alternatives (to IE, to MS Office, or to the Windows platform as a whole) and weaken the monopoly's value, both for revenue generation and for leverage.
Note that this is a business model. It is strategic and doesn't produce revenue directly. It isn't dependent on volunteer labour, but the open source licence is essential for long-term cred. It only works for big market players, that see their own home markets threatened by the monopolist's take-over, and that are not fatally dependent on the monopolist's goodwill, e.g, in licensing.
