Sorry, I wasn't thinking only about a software business. I was thinking
more broadly. In the current regulatory and philosophical approach to
business, and putting on my "homo economicus" hat (which is ugly, ill
fitting, and I hate wearing), I have a difficult time coming up with
arguments that would persuade a corporation to support end-user freedom.
While it may not be bad, it is also not obviously good in the bottom
line way that shows up easily in spreadsheets.
Christopher Allan Webber
has a good suggestion. My own suggestion would include transforming the
very concept of a corporation to not be such a venal, valueless
institution. But my suggestion is obviously ridiculous, so assuming no
regulatory changes, how about:
- Supporting end-user freedom can
support customers' ability to move between vendors creating a more
competitive marketplace (although competition doesn't necessarily
benefit the corp. in a way it appreciates).
- Supporting
end-user freedom allows people to use software in ways the corp. may not
have considered (thus increasing the size of the market).
- Supporting end-user freedom can help you to reach future customers (e.g. students or institutions evaluating software).
- Supporting end-user freedom allows customers and others to more readily contribute back (which reduces costs).
- Supporting end-user freedom can help keep your competitors honest (assuming copyleft and assuming the corp. is willing to take action).
I'm sure there are others, but they're not leaping to mind. My imagination is apparently rather limited. :-/
We
have to somehow put dollar figures (or the appropriate metric) on these
things and see how the spreadsheet comes out. Of course, sometimes
companies just have to try things to find out if the numbers work. Some
corporations are more daring than others.
Charles Stanhope at 2016-01-12T18:31:11Z
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), Iñaki Arenaza, Nathan Willis likes this.