And they have been heavily funded. My understanding is they also dont pay for bandwidth.
If there were people with $$ to fund a site, why havent they stepped up to do it?
On 6/25/07, Joe wrote: > > Actually, I think a site that an open source for websites would be > wikipedia... sure, it takes things to run, but look, its all controlled > by the community and some volunteers.... > > Seth! Leary wrote: > > > > All: > > > > I find the comparisons that are getting tossed about quite interesting. > > > > Running a web site like geocaching.com is not at all analogous to > creating > > software. Software (Firefox, IE, Linux, Windows) is a single product > that > > gets replicated thousands of times. Nobody comes back to the well > > until you > > build a new version. A large website is an organic product that gets > used > > directly (not replicated) by thousands of users daily. That places a > much > > larger burden on the web site's host/owner if the site is getting used > as > > much as geocaching.com is used. > > > > Thus, the open-source argument holds little water. If Groundspeak were > to > > give away the database, what would happen? The only thing possible; > > another > > commercial entity would spring up. If I spend 1,000 hours writing a > > piece of > > software and I choose to give it away, it doesn't matter whether I > > give away > > one copy or a million; it still cost me 1,000 hours to make and I am > > out no > > more and no less. But if I (or Groundspeak) create a web site, it makes > a > > huge difference whether one person hits it per month or a million. Look > at > > wikipedia. It does not have advertising but it would sink if it were not > > funded by vast numbers of donation dollars. The money has to come from > > somewhere. > > > > The Bell break-up has already been mentioned. I think it's worth > pointing > > out that this is much more comparable than software. Those of us old > > enough > > to remember the good old days of Ma Bell will recall that the break-up > > was a > > debacle and is still a nightmare. No matter how you slice it, there can > > really only be one REAL phone company in any given region and everyone > > else > > has to rent that company's wires. It's all smoke and mirrors. But > > perhaps I > > digress. > > > > You can't convince me that Groundspeak could have made an 'admirable' > > choice > > (by either keeping the site ad-free and membership-free or giving away > the > > database) and it would still be alive and well and as robust as it is > now > > unless you can show me a truly comparable example. Firefox is not the > > example and I don't think that there is one out there. > > > > I'm also curious about this remark from Scout: "[Jeremy] had lawyers to > > threaten lawsuits against others with a different vision for the hobby." > > > > Is this a reference to an actual event or just speculation? I don't > recall > > this happening. > > > > Seth! > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]