On receiving an interview request from Uber
ccosse at gmail.com
Sat Dec 17 19:48:24 UTC 2016
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Carsten Agger <agger at modspil.dk> wrote:
> On 12/17/2016 08:29 PM, Charles Cossé wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Daniel Pocock < <daniel at pocock.pro>
> daniel at pocock.pro> wrote:
>> If you own an apartment in a building with elevators, you have to pay
>> service charges to the company that maintains it.
>> With all due respect, where's the motivation for the poor bugger who
> writes the free software? I believe that there is still something missing
> from this equation.
> The software developer would normally be paid by the hour to produce free
> software for industrial use.
That just translates to "the company giving-away their own motivation /
competetive advantage", does it not?
I'm all about free software, and paying to develop free software is a step
in the right direction, but still ... the likelihood that the software
would even benefit another elevator manufacturer seems unrealistic ... and
thus cluttering-up fsf software archives with useless elevator software ...
I know, there should be open standards for it ... but c'mon :)
> That's what my company does, anyway, even if we don't make software for
> elevators or embedded systems in general.
> So it's okay to pay the company to maintain the elevator but not the
> software developer? Where's the motivation for the software developer?
> ... to maintain the elevator, and as part of that, the software. The
> developer's motivation would be the paycheck. Payment by invoiceable hours
> is a standard business model for free software developers. Support
> contracts are too.
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at lists.fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discussion