| Volunteerism, public-funded research projects, and progressive open-source-friendly companies are the best thing we FOSS advocates have until business models that are more appropriate for the Information Age become popular. Commercial and closed-source software exists because we've accepted the foisting of a manufacturing-age business model upon intangible (digital) works. It is inherently unfair to charge by-the-copy for goods that cost $0 to manufacture, but we accept the obscene profits that the industry winners make because it's hard and risky to envision or implement other models. Many FOSS licenses including the GPL encourage the programmer to charge as much as she wishes for the software. But, if we allow the customer the same rights as they have with tangible (physical) goods, then they're allowed to turn around and give away copies for nothing, undercutting the original developer. So we might as well just give it away. If only there were a way to ensure that the original developer gets compensated for the time they spend developing their work, but still permits software to be sold without draconian restrictions. I was really excited when Kickstarter came along because that was the closest thing to a "fair" business model that I had encountered: customers don't receive the product until enough people agree to purchase the product. If more marketplaces existed that we creators of "intangible goods" could take advantage of, I think we'd see a lot more, higher-quality FOSS software. Creative commons by-sa-licensed works of illustration, literature, and music, too. Kickstarter's model is one of many variants. If this sort of thing is interesting to you, google "Dominant Assurance Contracts": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract |