> All business is about value created, not expenses incurred.
Yes and no. Profit is revenue minus expenses. But you have to pay the expenses no matter what. Revenue and profit don't just magically appear.
> And houses and furniture have marginal costs, where software does not.
This seems to demonstrate what I said about taking software labor for granted. Producing software to operate at scale is actually quite difficult and requires a ton of labor.
> How does Linus Torvalds make money when Linux is free?
Good question. I don't even know. But the real question isn't how a few famous individuals like Torvalds and Stallman make a living. The question is how millions of non-famous individuals can make a living under this "funding model", whatever that happens to be.
> it's pretty clear that successful businesses can employ lots of people usi[n]g either model
Define "lots of people", and compare how many people are employed by open source companies vs. how many are employed by closed source companies.
[EDIT:] I suspect the answer to the question of Linux funding is corporate donors. Which would be pretty ironic, given the anti-capitalist argument here, don't you think? It's just like how Mozilla is funded in large part by Google search revenue.
Yes and no. Profit is revenue minus expenses. But you have to pay the expenses no matter what. Revenue and profit don't just magically appear.
> And houses and furniture have marginal costs, where software does not.
This seems to demonstrate what I said about taking software labor for granted. Producing software to operate at scale is actually quite difficult and requires a ton of labor.
> How does Linus Torvalds make money when Linux is free?
Good question. I don't even know. But the real question isn't how a few famous individuals like Torvalds and Stallman make a living. The question is how millions of non-famous individuals can make a living under this "funding model", whatever that happens to be.
> it's pretty clear that successful businesses can employ lots of people usi[n]g either model
Define "lots of people", and compare how many people are employed by open source companies vs. how many are employed by closed source companies.
[EDIT:] I suspect the answer to the question of Linux funding is corporate donors. Which would be pretty ironic, given the anti-capitalist argument here, don't you think? It's just like how Mozilla is funded in large part by Google search revenue.