On segunda-feira, 13 de agosto de 2012 15.28.35, Rui Maciel wrote: > On 08/13/2012 03:14 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > So, in all, you*may* be right that giving a product under a freer licence > > lowers its monetary value -- it's intuitive. > > That is also debatable. For example, Red Hat manages to pull an annual > revenue of around 1 billion dollars while giving away their product > under a FLOSS license. I really doubt they could pull this off if they > had based their business on a stack of proprietary software. After all, > what's the monetary value of something that no one wants to spend money on?
I'm saying that this process is intuitive:
asset X available under licence L1 is valued at $Y
change to use licence L2, which allows more people to obtain X for free
asset X is now valued at $Z
since more people obtain it for free instead of paying for it, Z < Y.
But intuition isn't necessarily correct. In particular, I agree with the
arguments you and others have brought up that the use of a freer licence has
other, potential benefits, which might increase the value of the asset.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
