Probably a stoopid question, but I'm curious.


If all Linux software is open source (i.e. free to compile/install etc.) then how can a company making a program for Linux make money if it has to, in effect, keep it open source so anyone can use it for nothing.

documentation, tech support, donations, etc

Your basic facts are slightly off.

Everything for Linux does not have to be open source. For Instance Unreal Tournament 2003, isn't but it does run on Linux. (In fact theres an Installer on Disk 3 for Linux).

Even when it is OSS It depends on the License. Not everthing is GPL or LGPL.

Somethings are Dual License you can use it for free but if you want to use it for commercial work you need a diffrence license (like Qt).

Others charge for Support Services... Theirs lots of diffrent ways companies make money from OSS.

But most OSS is not made by companies but communties that have no interest in making money.

Ah, that makes more sense, thanks. (Edited as I hadn't read leons reply before replying myself!).

So to make a stable, intuitive and easy to use, reliable program is not in the company's interest as people will not need any help or tech support?

I know in the case of large software, a certain degree of documentation and support is needed given the complexity of software. I'm just wondering how much time the big software houses are gonna seriously go for Linux long term if they can make a lot more money writing it for Windows/Mac platforms etc.

Why would they make more money writing for Windows? Most BIG software companies sell closed source products. It would be the same program as in Windows, just for Linux (UT2003 was a good example).

And Open Source does not have to be "free" (as in no money). YOU CAN CHARGE FOR OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. You just have to give the customers access to the source.

Lindows is a nice example. They deal in Open Source, but they dont give their distro away for free.

Because as Linux gets more users, the more money can be made.

Don't forget Linux now accounts for nealy 20% of all servers, thats a large market to ignore.

Also making unstable stuff for Linux is a bad idea, as the community will probably make something stable and out do them.

One major potential market for Linux vendors would be in consulting. Linux after all is just a tool, and its value is in what you can build with it. Look at it his way, a hammer, a sander, and a saw are cheap, and a pile of wood is cheap, but a finished chest of drawers built by a skilled carpenter can be very expensive. Same deal with Linux. Vendors can/could provide technical assistance to their clients' engineering teams to help them build the systems they want using Linux. -- J.W.

It's largely dependant on market share - If and when Linux's desktop market share increases to a viable level then you might see companies like Macromedia porting some of their software to Linux - It will then be "Linux software" - but it won't be "Open source"

many distro's do sell for a high price (SuSe, redhat...) but the thing is you are allowed to sell/resell/give it away for free.

IMHO this is not good. newbies will see this and think Linux (that's Linux the kernel, the actual operating system) is not free, which is false.

i like what slackware is doing. you can either download it or buy it. i would buy it just to support them. their website looks like that of a linux distro not a corporation. thats just my opinion though.

software for linux obviously can either be free/open or not.

Many thanks chaps. It all makes sense now.

You got point there. One can get usually hopelesly lost in high profile red hat like web sites.
Elegance and simplicity what's Slackware is all about.