Return-Path: id AA05655; Tue, 16 Apr 91 14:35:59 EDT Date: Tue, 16 Apr 91 14:35:59 EDT Message-Id: <9104161836.AA05655@grackle.UUCP> To: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!lojbab Cc: ai-lab!lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com In-Reply-To: Bob LeChevalier's message of Mon, 15 Apr 91 23:21 EDT Subject: Freely redistributable information Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!grackle!bob From: cbmvax!uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!grackle!bob Sender: cbmvax!uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!grackle!bob Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Apr 16 16:08:45 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!ai.mit.edu!grackle!bob Neither Nora nor I know C, and we're putting our learning effort into Lojban. I am happy of other people write software in C, but then Nora and I cannot help support and maintain it. At 'a buck a copy' for the author, most authors won't either. You are missing Dave's point. In the Unix/Internet world freely redistributable software is often *better* supported than monopolistically restricted software. There are two reasons: First, with freely redistributable software, you can always hire someone to fix it. With restricted software, you may have a support contract, but that does not mean the company will fix *your* bug. The managers of the monopoly may decide for good business reasons to devote their resources to satisfying another, perhaps bigger, customer first. I have often been told by people who are supposed to support me that they hope the bug fix will be included in the `next major release, next year'. Second, as a practical matter, you often do *not* have to pay for maintainance. People on the net often fix bugs and post patches. People often make enhancements and post them. People work on long and complex programs as well as simple programs. People enjoy doing this. Note that in the PC world, much so-called `free software' does not come with sources and is not distributed in a community of people who read and change the sources and post fixes and enhancements to a network. You may be basing your judgement on experience with shareware. The shareware I aquired when I had a PC seldom came with sources. Mostly, it was not freely redistributable. Furthermore, and critically important, I was not part of a network on which people posted fixes and improvements. This is not to say that the 'cheap software' route isn't the way to go, but ... I think LLG should build a reputation for quality The phrase `cheap software' suggests a mistaken comprehension of the problem. In my experience, the only way to get reliable, high quality software is to get lots of people to test it and to suggest fixes to it. A single person or a single company does not have the interest or the time to do the job. Indeed, it was this discovery that got me interested in freely redistributable software in the first place. I was using a $50,000 software package (plus expensive support contract). I came upon another program that turned out to have fewer bugs, that got those fixed quicker, and which did more of what I wanted to get done than the monopolized package. This discovery amazed me and got me thinking. Dave also doesn;t answer the question of how we pay the bills. Yes, he did. He suggested that the best thing to do is to get more people to use lojban, and that sales would follow. However, it may not be a short term vrs long term issue at all. For one, most potential lojban customers are not on the Internet or on other good networks. I suspect that most potential customers expect to buy floppies and printed manuals. Of course, if you make the software freely redistributable, this means that customers who find lojban interesting will be free to sell or give the software to their friends; they, too, will be free to go to a printer and print manuals, advertise them and sell them. However, in practice, you are not likely to lose much business this way, if you offer reasonable service at a good price. People will come to you not only because they have heard of you but because they want to support the Logical Language Group. If you sell restricted the software, your honest customers will not provide copies to their friends. Some of those friends will buy from you and become loglanists. But others won't bother. You will have lost the opportunity. I have found that people like to buy well printed manuals and standard distributions from the `official source'. This means that even if you provide sources to the documentation, you can still sell lots of manuals. Even if you provide sources to programs on-line you can sell lots of tapes. Also, as a business matter, as Dave says, you cannot charge a high price for lojbanic materials and expect to sell many copies. For most potential customers, at this time, lojban is a speculation. This means that lojbanic materials have to be sold at a price that people are willing to gamble. I suspect that Dave's $19 suggested price for a set of floppies is reasonable for the PC world. A 250 or 300 page book might go for the same amount. Consider what happens if you sell restricted software. Suppose the Logical Language Group sells 500 $19 items in the next year. This would not generate much money to pay a programmer to maintain the software. And you want to take some of this money for LLG, too? It is better to make the information freely redistributable. You will still sell to the PC world at $19 because those people are not on the net. At the time time, you will get many more people spending a bit of time maintaining the software and porting it to new platforms than you would get from from one person spending a bit of time maintaining it. Also, you will still sell nine-track tapes and QIC-24 cartridges to the Unix world. There are people who will buy from you as a way to support you. There are people who want to get a complete, standard distribution. And there are many people who prefer to buy a nicely typeset, bound manual rather than print out the manual themselves and read it in a three ring binder. Let me return to the question of numbers: numbers of people. Not many people know about lojban and not many are interested. We want more people involved. One of the better ways of attracting and keeping people's interest is to bring them into a community. Few lojban people live close enough together physically to make a physical community. But the Internet provides a virtual world in which people who are physically separated from each other can form an electronic community. This means that people who are physically distant from me, such as nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au, can write messages that catch my interest. Out of the people lurking in a group, some small percent may buy from the Logical Language Group; some smaller percent may donate money. What can happen (it has happened with a group I started), is that a virtual community can unexpectedly `take off'; it can grow; new people can take over the tasks of explaining things to newcomers and of providing archives. My hope is that happens with the lojban group. My hope is that in a year or two there will be several lists: lojban.novice, lojban.writings.original, lojban.grammar.expert, lojban.software, etc. Again, the best way to bring the lookers-on into the thick of it is to get them learning vocabulary and grammer; and on a computer network, this is best done by providing documentation, lists of words, and interactive teaching programs. And with a constituency will come support. Robert J. Chassell bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu Rattlesnake Mountain Road (413) 298-4725 or (617) 253-8568 or Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (617) 876-3296 (for messages)