Which brings us to the point of basically saying that some software seems to better off if it is proprietary. Right? On 7/25/10, Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:00 AM, David Baron <d_baron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Going gpl does not preclude selling finish products. > > No, it doesn't. But it does create strong downward price pressure. If > there a market for product at price P, then there is a market for it a > price (P-1). Releasing under the GPL allows anyone who buys it at P > can resell at P-1. But if there is a market for it at P-1, then there > is a market for it at price P-2. the GPL allows anyone who buys it at > P-1 (or P) to resell at P-2. and so on, all the way down to P-P = 0. > > This has less impact for companies like RedHat, where there is a > strong support market. It also has less impact on companies making s/w > that is a pain in the neck to install, even in pre-compiled form (e.g. > embedded systems) or that has very specific h/w requirements. > > But audio plugins don't fit either category. The support needs are > pretty minimal, and the whole point of them is to be (a) easy to > install (b) avoiding any special h/w (this is why h/w dongles make > their use such a pain for some people). They have the additional > problem of *appearing* to be small and presumably simple little chunks > of code, which devalues them in the eyes of a pretty large section of > the user base. Very specialized plugins can have more apparent value, > and users who understand the complexities of creating a really good > digital (say) filter might also value the work. > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-user mailing list > Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user > -- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.ru/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
