> I am not a free software "zealot" and don't mind some closed-ness
Maybe we were not that zealot after all when we free software "zealot" said that proprietary software allow their owners to treat their users badly and that eventually, this happens to every proprietary software. Just saying. It amazes me how surprised users of proprietary software are every time they get screwed by their masters even though this has been happening for the last 30 years.
Products are OK to be proprietary as long as the value provided is top-notch. Sorry, but I don't see profesional designers using Gimp over Photoshop.
Relying on a platform for your existence is a different story. But as a business you need alliances with other businesses, and not just in software. And everybody can pull the plug on you, that's why reputation matters and in many cases it's all you need.
About free software, programmers need to eat too. Myself I use open-source everywhere, but for the last 7 years I've been doing consultancy work (turn-key apps that are never released in any form or web services that put a lock on your data ... the worst kind of closed systems). And until you'll teach me a business model that would empower me to work on "free software" while providing for my family, then I'll keep doing it.
Until then it's only fair I get paid for my work, that's why I consider the free software philosophy as extremist bullshit.
My entire business (and livelihood) is centered on configuring and adapting free software to fit the needs of businesses. I contribute along the way because what one person needs, likely many need.
Free software is an infrastructure. I drive on it daily delivering value and getting paid.
You're wrong: every decent product is a platform. Photoshop and GIMP have plugins developed on top of them, and professional designers are very much reliant on "photoshop the platform" for their existence.
lets see theres training, and consulting, theres offer the free version, and charge for a more robust paid version, theres pay for customization and don't forget ads. There are many ways to have a business model around "free software". Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".
> Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".
That's a fallacy.
The majority of open-source sponsors are selling closed systems or services to sponsor their "free software" involvement. Google doesn't have a business model around "free software". Neither does IBM or Sun.
I'm also not Mozilla and my apps would probably never get in front of 40% of all Internet users. Even if I'm that lucky, it's probably not going to be a desktop app that's used to search for stuff.
To get paid for customizations, your software also has to be really popular for businesses (consumers don't pay for that, they either endure it or search for something better).
Did I mentioned that I don't live in Silicon Valley nor in Cambridge, but in an Eastern European country? So training is off.
I already mentioned consulting, but then I would be a hypocrite if I promoted the free software ideology while working on the worst kind of closed software, wouldn't I?
> > Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".
> That's a fallacy.
> The majority of open-source sponsors are selling closed systems or services to sponsor their "free software" involvement.
Red Hat, Canonical and a large chunk of IBM GS wouldn't be able to sell those services with proprietary products - the OSS licensing of various Linux OSs, Apache, etc. are the basis for them being able to have an audience to sell their services.
I agree with you re: Google. They're not a service business and could have written their own OS or used a proprietary one and not affect revenue.
> Did I mentioned that I don't live in Silicon Valley nor in Cambridge, but in an Eastern European country? So training is off.
Maybe you should have a look at this again... I've been on a trip to Romania for training (about architecture of some specific piece of OSS) at some point. As long as you can provide good training, it could work for you too.
Phusion (makers of Ruby Enterprise Edition and Phusion Passenger) definitely make a profit.
I think they basically just do it through consulting + a little support and training. (See http://phusion.nl/services). But since they wrote Passenger and REE, I'm sure they can command a very high rate.
This is human nature, it's not related to source openness. Open source would just allow you to start over after you have been treated badly if you have the needed development skills (hello Mr. Drepper).
It's also worth noting that the users aren't getting screwed at all by Apple, only the developers and only a small fraction of them.
Maybe we were not that zealot after all when we free software "zealot" said that proprietary software allow their owners to treat their users badly and that eventually, this happens to every proprietary software. Just saying. It amazes me how surprised users of proprietary software are every time they get screwed by their masters even though this has been happening for the last 30 years.