So yesterday I grumped about the cost of new licenses for Six Apart's Movable Type tool.
Timothy Appnel says buck up and deal with the fact that industrial-grade software should be bought at industrial-grade prices. Referring to the furor from hobbyist MT users, he writes:
"This outcry raises a bigger more important point which is the reason for my post. As a developer and one who makes a living writing code, this reaction to Six Apart's new licensing is really disheartening and on a certain level frustrating to see. I am a firm believer and backer of open source. I've personally released quite a bit of open source code myself and will continue to do so. However this apparent expectation of the vocal part of community that it is their right to have all great works of software at no cost is bothersome. If users don't have the funds or won't pay on principle for my time, effort or talent – how do I eat?"
John Robb, who used to compete with Six Apart as president of Userland Software, agrees:
"... The pricing is reasonable for both individuals and corporations. Ben and Mena have been living off of air and love for their software for years. They, like everyone else, want a family, a house, a car, and vacations in the future. That costs money. So its time that they get paid for their effort like everyone else. It will also help you, the user, because it will ensure that they will be able to continue their effort for years to come. Everyone wins with this. ..."
As I said yesterday, I don't object to paying for software (and yes, we paid for licenses for our current MT installations). What bothers me is the limitations in the licenses (which right off the bat would force us to buy two licenses). But, hey, they're free to charge what they want, and we're free to look at other platforms ...
This is all well and good, and I don't think any right-minded person begrudges people making money, after all, all things being equal, we wouldn't be at work but rather on a warm beach sipping a cold drink.
The fracas is arising, I believe, from those who "made" the company and it's software popular, spread praise by word of mouth, garnered it's reputation, and over the years became the de-facto focus group and bug testers for this new, higher-cost, for-profit version. Many even paid for that privilege.
This isn't so far removed from what Microsoft did in the past--that is, practically give away the early OS (DOS), then get a huge installed base that is locked into perpetual upgrades, and since all the desktops are running the OS, it makes sense to install the higher-cost servers in the back room to connect to all these clients.
They sacrificed early money in order to make later profits. And we all know that it made them the richest software company in the world. It also made them lots of enemies. Plus, there's by far no guarantee that in this age of open-source, the Internet, and what-have-you-done-for-me-lately, that the old MS model would (or could) even work.
6A has every right to charge and make money. They also need to accept the criticism and exodus of those who don't wish to be tossed aside after years of being the only reason that 6A was even able to *get* to a point where they *COULD* charge.
Posted by: dave on May 14, 2004 10:29 AMI'm not sure if I was so crude as to say buck up, but I think its necessary to compenstate software developers to keep the whole ecosystem healthy. What if software companies just scraped by and couldn't afford to advertise? What would happen to Network World?
Posted by: Timothy Appnel on May 15, 2004 06:43 PMPost a comment
