MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-12 |
| FROM | From: "Stanley A. Klein"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [fairuse] Re: [hangout] Re: eGovOS conference in D.C.
|
At 03:53 PM 2/12/2003 -0500, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
>
>> I think advocacy is in the eye of the beholder.
>>
>> Tony's express goal (per the web page) is to raise awareness. I think he
>> is also trying to raise and debate policy issues, such as security.
>>
>> Perhaps some of this can be explained by a quote from a (not accepted)
>> abstract that I submitted to the conference:
>>
>> "Because of the nature of free/open-source business models, inclusion of
>> free-open source software among business case alternatives also depends on
>> its being pro-actively placed in the acquisition process similar to a
>> build-versus-buy consideration, unless the acquisition has a substantial
>> component of outside support services."
>>
>> Admittedly, I wasn't thinking about hardware with included software when I
>> wrote that.
>>
>> For the most part, "no salesman will call" about free/open source. For the
>> most part, nobody gets a commission for selling copies of free/open-source
>> software, like people get commissions for selling copies of proprietary
>> software.
>
>This is an odd claim. Why shouldn't salesfolk be paid to sell free
>software? Some are paid to do just this today. And why should the pay not
>be by commission?
>
It takes a revenue stream to pay commissions. And the revenue streams
associated with free/open-source software are for related services, not for
copies of the software. If the procurement is not structured in advance to
require the related services, there is no revenue stream.
For example, Red Hat does not really sell copies of software. They sell
"subscription services" related to the software.
I bought my copy of OpenOffice.org from Edmonds for $2.49. How much of a
commission can Edmonds pay out of $2.49? I've made several copies to give
to various people. I gave one copy to the City of Rockville and told them
they could put it on every desktop in City Hall. They haven't but I
continue to encourage the CIO to look at free/open-source. I do that as an
interested citizen. But how could you pay a sales person to do the same
thing? Only if there is something else to sell beside the software.
>>
>> So the principal way to get free/open-source into government is to make
>> those staffing the acauisition process aware of its existence and benefits
>> so they are persuaded to do what they need to do to put it on the table.
>
>Indeed. And certainly paid salesfolk can help here.
>
Of course they can help, if you can pay them. And if you can have enough
of them to run around to various agencies and sniff out procurements that
people are just beginning to think about and get the procurements
structured to be more than just the copies of the software itself. But the
conference helps enormously, even if you can't pay for that kind of sales
effort, because the government and contractor employees who learn of the
benefits of free/open-source at the conference go back and do the selling
internally. And you must have that internal selling to get the
procurements properly structured.
>>
>> There is another interesting kind of outcome from the conference. At the
>> last conference I learned that the Veterans Administration had produced a
>> free/open-source hospital information system. It is being used around the
>> world, but the VA can't provide support in the US. A non-government group
>> has been formed to do so. (BTW, there seem to be numerous speakers on that
>> topic at the upcoming conference.)
>
>Why not a non-government for profit group?
I think that is exactly what it is.
>
>oo--JS.
>
>>
>> So does awareness = advocacy? Does getting people together so they can
>> learn from each other = advocacy? It's certainly arguable, but it isn't
>> what they say they are trying to do.
>>
>>
>> Stan Klein
>
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
