>> So the long run solution to the free audio problem is to persuade >> everyone in our society to provide whatever he or her does for free and >> find ways to make it accessible to everyone who wants it, and to make >> the same efforts today's marketers do to communicate to people why they >> should want it. >> > Why don't you start by persuading yourself to provide whatever you do > for free, etc? It's easy to insist that others should do free work for > you. But are you ready to do full time hard work for free for the others? Of course. I developed a business plan to produce commercially salable music and give it away for free and I am in the process of executing it. This is an intermediate plan on the way to my vision of a society where money is no longer necessary because people trust they will be able to sustain themselves and work for the satisfaction of accomplishing what they want to. > Brilliant idea. Someone else should pay to somebody else so that you can > get Linux audio software for free. What about paying for the software > yourself? 'Attracting money' refers to advertising revenue, sales of merchandising, and donations, which would pour in from people who are grateful for getting my music for free. My productive contribution comes from composing, arranging and producing the music, as well as marketing it. As money comes in, a significant portion goes to the developers in the form of donations. > About the original subject: IMHO the only way to attract more Linux > audio developers is paying for the software. Money is the reason why 90% > of people do any work. Practically all professional audio software > developers do they work for Win/Mac because the _paying_ customers use > them. Linux audio software is being developed by amateurs because there > is no market for professional developers. I agree 100% with what you are saying, but I disagree that paying for the software 'per unit' is a good idea because it kills network effects and fosters competition. My suggestion is to MAKE the donations model work through a dual selling process: First you sell your user on the idea of using your software, and THEN you sell your user on the idea of donating. That second sales process takes the place of downright charging, and is a proper (if challenging, until you get good at it) replacement for enforcing intellectual property rights, which is simply impractical in the world of infinite replicability that we have on the Internet. I appreciate your comments, Hainu; I really think free software can be much more than it is right now for the good of society, and I have specific ideas on how to accomplish this, an I am infinitely grateful to anyone who will take these ideas into consideration. Have a great day! Carlo
