|
Hi Jon,
Please forgive my misunderstanding. This discussion has been confusing to me. Open-source dialogs are always confusing to me. Aaron labeled developers as "contributors" in one context and "partners" in another. That confused me.
You indicated that original authors were lucky if they received 20% of a book deal, and that was one reason for you not having published one. I thought you meant that it wouldn't be worth your time. And that you found the disparity of bargaining position between author and publisher to be a disincentive to writing a book and making a deal. If that's what you meant, then I can relate to it. But if you meant the "opposite", then I'm confused, indeed.
I think I understand IBM Systems Magazine's rationale for supporting open-source. The idea of getting something for nothing has wide-spread public appeal, draws a reader audience, draws revenue from advertisers, and pays Aaron to promote it.
I think I understand companies like Red Hat & Novell which are at the top of multi-level marketing pyramids. I understand the appeal of open-source to Red Hat wanabees. But I don't understand the appeal of open-source for coders who actually create the IP and donate it to wanabee's repositories.
All of the talk about $xxx hourly rates, contributing to the greater good, saving the platform, warm and fuzzy feeling, sounds nebulous, grandiose, widely reaching, and like a snow job - frankly.
Nathan.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 11:08:30 AM
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Code donations for RPGUI initiative
On Jan 9, 2010, at 6:31 AM, web400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Jon ParisRight. Open-source goes even further - serving the interests of
Problem with publishing ... is the truly silly amount you get ...
20% ...
One of many reasons why I have never published a book!
publishers, promoters, and those who manage the public repository -
it puts them in a position to provide services comparable to Red Hat
& Novell. Open-source is widely reaching in part because the
majority of people are led to believe that they get something for
nothing. Individual original authors (contributors to the
repository) get the shaft. Does anyone believe in the traditional
approach to growing a business on a fair and trustworthy quid pro
quo basis? Hmmm ... must be feeling unpleasant tonight.
I think you must be Nathan - my intent was the exact opposite. I don't
believe open-source "shafts" anyone. One has a choice as to whether to
contribute or not - if you contribute and get nothing from it how is
that being shafted?
Many have made money from an open source foundation. You mention Red
Hat, and of course SugarCRM, MySQL, Zend, and many others haven't done
badly.
My point was that given how little money the average author (of books)
makes, you might as well give it away for free - hope it goes viral
and that you will subsequently make money by printing hard-copy for
those who want it (and make 60% plus of the full price) and by the
consulting and teaching opportunities it provides. If I ever get round
to it, I'll let you know how it works out!
Jon Paris
www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
