diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world.html | 209 |
1 files changed, 209 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5ae9c32 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world.html @@ -0,0 +1,209 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>Only the Free World Can Stand Up to Microsoft +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-world.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Only the Free World Can Stand Up to Microsoft</h2> + +<p>by <strong>Tom Hull</strong></p> + +<div class="announcement"> +<blockquote><p>This article is part of our section +of <a href="/philosophy/third-party-ideas.html">Third Party +Ideas</a>.</p></blockquote> +</div> + +<ol> +<li>The reproduction and distribution cost of software is zero at +the margin. This means that in theory it is no more +expensive to produce software which can be freely distributed and +used by everybody than it is to produce software for a limited +clientele.</li> +<li>The pricing of software bears no relationship to the cost of its +development. The two factors that do matter are market size (which +is limited by price and utility) and competition. Given a market +for a software product, the maximum margin can be obtained by +precluding or eliminating competition.</li> +<li>Software companies that are able to thwart competition attain +pinnacles of power which are inconceivable in other industries. +Partly this is due to the enormous cash flows that are possible in the +absence of competition from products with nil reproduction costs, but +largely it is due to the complexity of software itself, which allows +dominant companies to design “standards” which exclude +future competition.</li> +<li>All niche markets for software rapidly evolve toward monopoly or +an equilibrium where a small number of players tacitly agree not +to mutually destroy their profits. (Established companies can +defend their market share by reducing their prices to practically +nothing, making price competition suicidal for newcomers.) However, +there are cases of asymmetrical competition, where a large company +with other sources of income can destroy a smaller company that +depends on a single niche revenue stream.</li> +<li>Microsoft has a secure revenue stream based on its dominant +position in personal computer operating systems software, and uses the +power inherent in that position to favor its other business activities +with its ability to dictate “standards” and to undermine +competition, especially where power (as opposed to mere money) is at +stake.</li> +<li>Capitalists invest in new software ventures with the hope of +gaining a dominant position in a new niche market. There is +essentially no new investment in existing niche markets, since it +is impossible to compete with an established dominant player on +the basis of lower costs and the possible gains of an uphill +battle for a small share of a shrinking pie rarely justify the +risks. In their wildest dreams these capitalists want nothing so +much as to be just like Microsoft.</li> +<li>The drive to restrain Microsoft under the rubric of antitrust law +seems mostly to be the effort of companies who find their own power +positions threatened by Microsoft's activities. They seek to make +it harder for Microsoft to undermine their own businesses. However, +they are fundamentally similar to Microsoft in that they don't +question a world where technology companies working from private +caches of intellectual property are able to control the use of that +technology for their own best profit.</li> +<li>In the market equation, demand is equal to, and in many ways the +master of, production. Yet in the world we live in, production is +highly organized and efficient and commands enormous financial +resources and seductive powers of persuasion, while demand is +fragmented, uninformed, and powerless. While consumers can still kill +a product that they have no desire for, they are nearly powerless to +direct or even influence the detailed designs of those products. For +software products, consumers can only choose among a given set of +alternatives, which are extremely complex, dauntingly impenetrable, +and generally designed more for the company's anticompetitive purposes +than for the user's tasks. (Even the old fashioned option of doing +without is often impossible due to the intricate web of +interdependencies as new hardware and software march in lock step into +the future.)</li> +<li>The real “killer software” is free software: software +that is free of intellectual property claims; that is published in +source code form, so can be inspected, evaluated, fixed and enhanced +by anyone with a mind to do so; that is freely distributed and can be +installed on machines and used without limit. Free software is the +software that kills the closed, nefarious software product +industry. It is software that users can select intelligently, to do +today's tasks, and which they can collaboratively build on to handle +future needs. Free software is the one thing that not even Microsoft +can compete with.</li> +<li>Still, there is one core problem: who pays for developing free +software? The usual answer — which leads to all of the trouble +above — is that investors pay for development, which they +recover from their profits. The only real answer is that development +costs must be paid for by users. The key point here is that what is +paid for is not the distribution or use of the software, but its +development, and that the development of free software implies that it +can be used by anyone. I think there is a simple way to handle this: +anyone who wants a piece of software developed or enhanced posts a +“request-for-proposal,” including a sum that the requester +is willing to contribute towards its development. Intermediary +organizations can pool these requests, and interested parties can up +the ante. Developers can then search through the current postings and +bid on development work or work on spec. Developers can also post +their own proposals, which users can then buy into.</li> +<li>Free software can be developed less expensively than closed +software products. Even for well paid professional developers, +fully underwritten by conscientious users, the cost of free +software would be significantly less than the premiums now being +paid for empire building. The quality would be better, especially +in terms of fitness for use. Free distribution would ensure +maximum exposure and choice: a free market based purely on +utility and quality. The service component of software would also +open up: anyone who wanted to could start from the same code, to +learn, support, and teach. The best service providers would +succeed.</li> +<li>Simple steps can get this movement underway: Form an initial +organization to sort out the technical issues, suggest working +arrangements, study the economics, hack out a legal framework, seed +and coordinate the requests, and canvas for initial technology +contributions (including the large body of currently available +freeware), do some evangelical work. Urge large companies and +organizations to budget a small fraction of their annual software +outlays for proposals. Set up a review group for intellectual property +issues, challenge dubious claims, and investigate the feasibility of +buying and releasing rights to valid claims. Encourage the +development of more local organizations — local to place, to +industry, to niche, to taste — with the initial group breaking +up or fading away: common methods and procedures, but no centralized +control.</li> +<li>Let's call this organization, this whole framework, “The +Free World.” It stands for free and open knowledge, free and +open development, software that works for you. Take a stand. Make a +contribution. You have nothing to lose +but <kbd>CTL-ALT-DEL</kbd>.</li> +</ol> + +<hr /> + +<p>Additional notes can be found +at <a href="/philosophy/free-world-notes.html"> +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-world-notes.html</a>.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p> +Please send questions and comments regarding this specific page to Tom +Hull <a href="mailto:ftwalk@contex.com"><ftwalk@contex.com></a>. +</p> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 1997 Tom Hull</p> + +<p>You may link to this document and/or redistribute it +electronically.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2019/08/03 14:52:39 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |