Re: Major interview

["malonowa" <malonowa@wanadoo.fr>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Olszewski <ray@comarre.com>
To: <seul-edu@seul.org>
Sent: lundi 6 septembre 1999 21:46
Subject: Re: Major interview


> At 01:29 AM 9/6/99 -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> >
> >Take a look at
> >http://www.seul.org/pub/fsib.html
> >This is a document I wrote a while ago, still in need of a bit of work,
> >that tries to explain how the free software model is actually better for
> >'normal people'. It mostly approaches it from the angle of businesses,
> >but the arguments could be adapted to the educational medium.
>
> I read through this, and I agree that it needs some work. It does a good
job
> of listing the benefits of Open Source (or free or whatever ... the fine
> distinctions may matter in some contexts, but not here) development, but
it
> responds only superficially to the main criticism of Open Source software:
> that the model offers no good way for freelance programmers and companies
to
> make money.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see Open Source catch on and grow, but I'm not so
> committed to the philosophy that I am blind to its limitations. So I read
> advocacy documents like yours with a skeptical eye, but not with hostility
> to their underlying goal.
>
> Let me anticipate the conclusion of my later, detailed comments on your
> draft, so as not to lose too soon the readers who find the later details
of
> my comments too tedious. To interest Edsoft developers in Open Source, we
> need convincing examples of how they do Open Source development and be
> profitable. If we can't make this case, we won't get them to develop. If
we
> can, then we will find some interest.
>
> How *might* Open Source be profitable in education? These are the models
> that are worth exploring:
>
> 1. Lagged Open Source -- develop first as a proprietary app for a client,
> with a commitment that the code will later be opened. (This is one way to
> read Cygnus' approach to compiler dvelopment.) In practice, this would
mean
> contracting with a large education organization -- in the US, a big
district
> or a state -- to develop apps specific to their needs.
>

This is interesting. I've seen British Steel and British Nuclear Fuels both
pay for such things in the past. I wonder if developing open source software
is a valid "tax dodge" for large companies. Is there anyone who might know
enough about law to know this?

> 2. Open Bid -- post the project on one of the Open Source Web sites, where
> interested individuals have a mechanism for agreeing to pay for
development
> of a particular product. (Do these Web sites really work yet? I don't
know,
> but the technical problems I see with this method are hardly
insurmountable,
> if  end-user are actually willing to support Open Source development that
is
> not "free" in the pricing sense.)
>
I've never seen these websites before. Do you have any urls?

> 3. Grants -- doesn't really need explaining.
>
Again, would this qualify for tax exemption?


> This list by itself isn't enough to convince anyone, and in any case there
> may be other approaches that we should consider. But I hope it is a
starting
> point for those interested in encouraging Edsoft developers to pursue Open
> Source, a pointer to the kinds os specific arguments needed to convince
them.
>
> The rest of this message is comments on specific areas of your draft,
areas
> where I think you need to tighten up the argument, usually by providing
> examples (or better examples). I though about sending it privately, but
> decided to go this way, since others may be able to suggest cogent
examples.
> And with the interview coming up, Doug, Jose, and Roman, at least, need to
> remain part of this discussion.

The rest is too big to include  - I think you make some very good points
here and this is just the sort of conversation that I've already had with
companies. I'd be very interested to see what the responses might be here
since I personally can't think of any.

Roman.