[CS-FSLUG] Sydney Morning Herald: Cuba to Dump Windows for Linux

[Don Parris]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:21:32 -0700
David Aikema <daikema at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/26/05, Don Parris <gnumathetes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > BTW, the Apple Store competes against P2P, and seems to be doing quite
> > well at it.  Some apparently have said that they make it their stuff
> > "easier than free".  Additionally, In Singapore's high-"piracy"
> > market, their theatres still thrive - Both of these examples are from
> > "Free Culture".  In other words, a free market keeps you and I
> > competitive.  Even when the goods are free, people will still pay for
> > quality goods & services.  If we try to stamp out *all* competition,
> > then we're no better than Microsoft.
> 
> In the case of Apple vs. P2P, the one provides a guaranteed source of
> quality, whereas with the other one you never quite know what you'll
> get.  I, for one, refuse to purchase anything whatsoever from Apple's
> store as by signing up for an account I agree not to circumvent the
> DRM on the downloaded product - something which for me is
> non-negotiatable (on the other hand I had a subscription with
> Audible.com for some time as to me, the pricing fit close enough to
> the idea of "renting" than purchasing for me - even though your
> license to a particular product purchased there is not time-limited).
> 
> In the case of open source software, I can also often get the stuff
> needed directly from the company manufacturing it - albiet without a
> support contract (which just buying a boxed distro probably won't
> provide you with more than a couple of months of limited access to
> anyways).  To me the equivalent there would be for Apple to charge for
> its product, while simultaneously offering free access to it.
> 
> I'm not totally certain of the situation in Singapore, but when you
> say theatres, do you mean movie theaters or live performance theaters?
>  Where did you find these statistics?
> 
The theaters are movie theaters (excuse my euro-spelling there).  As I
stated, both were examples from "Free Culture".  My point was that you can
compete in a libre market - even against gratis.  It just means you have to
adapt your way of thinking.  It requires a new business model - one that can
make the best use of the current and emerging technologies.  

I suspect that libre software will become the norm in many parts of the
world.  However, at some point in time, because of the continued
development, there may be new trends and challenges that will challenge
either, the libre software business model, or even the concept altogether. 
In other words, the current business models are in need of change.  Failure
to adapt will mean the demise of the business.  This is why I have said
repeatedly that, if Microsoft does not adapt, it will effectively kill
itself.

Think of an alcoholic.  They know they need to change, but are afraid to. 
They literally can drink themselves to death.  So, too, with businesses. 
They see the world around them changing, but are unable/unwilling to adapt. 
Their response is to protect their current behavior.  The industry "old
school" leaders have taken this approach.  Protect our business model by
protecting our "IP".  Congress doesn't help matters by giving them what they
want, either.  That hurts everyone.

Congress should, instead of extending copyright terms (and other harmful
acts that "strengthen" copyright), force businesses to adapt so they can
remain competitive.  Isn't that what off-shoring is about?  What about
NAFTA?  Anti-protectionism is a free market concept.  We Americans are still
semi-intelligent.  We surely can innovate when it comes to business models.

> > I did not know this, but apparently Microsoft lobbied the government
> > to veto a meeting to discuss LOSS.  It was either WIPO or a
> > WIPO-related meeting.  This is within the last two years.  The wording
> > used by our USPTO representative, Lois Boland, was to the effect that
> >  LOSS runs against the mission of WIPO.  Her comments, presumably
> > spurred by Microsoft's misunderstanding of what LOSS is, include the
> > idea that LOSS is about waiving rights held under copyright.  The goal
> > of WIPO is to determine (a) how best to protect IP, and (b) what the
> > best balance of rights is.  LOSS and libre arts fulfill these goals
> > naturally, including the balance part.
> > 
> > This is just one effort to get people to believe that LOSS is somehow
> > anti-IP.  What they're really saying is that they've lost their
> > innovative edge.  The real issue is that companies need to innovate,
> > not only in the area of software development, but also in business
> > development.  How do we adapt our businesses to the disruptive
> > technologies, such as the ability to download a whole OS via
> > broadband?  We cannot rely on IP to protect our monopolies.  We must
> > innovate.  That's a free market.  An IP-controlled market is not a
> > free one, but a protectionist scheme.
> > 
> > Have I turned the table on you yet? :)
> 
> Nope, I'm not a great big fan of the present IP situation, but I still
> have reservations about the workings of a business environment
> dominated by OSS.
> 
> David
> 

Take a look at Creative Commons' discussion lists.  One is about a hybrid
licensing concept.  I haven't had time to look too closely, and while I
think I disagree with one of their major tenets, it is nevertheless
interesting and worth consideration.  It might at least spark other ideas.

Don
-- 
evangelinux    GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/                   http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/
"Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime
anywhere."