Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:44:51 +0900

>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Morin <rdm@cfcl.com> writes:

    Rich> If free software is strategically important (e.g.,
    Rich> OpenOffice for Sun), enables critical products (eg, Darwin
    Rich> for Apple) or forms the basis for a set of services (e.g.,
    Rich> Linux for IBM), the company can be considered to be a
    Rich> "player" in the FSB arena.

Sure, and these companies may very well make a "pure" free software
play impossible by employing (for more salary and more fun) the very
people who could give a pure FS play a competitive edge.

    Rich> What is the essential difference between Tim's publishing a
    Rich> Linux book that includes a Linux CD and RedHat publishing a
    Rich> Linux CD distribution that includes a Linux book?

Support.  O'Reilly is a book publishing company.  None of those great
authors are on retainer in case a reader has a problem with the CD.

    Rich> If we get too picky with our definitions, we may find that
    Rich> the only businesses that make real money off Free Software
    Rich> aren't actually FSBs!

Exactly.  That's one of the things that Open Source is about.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py