Why Free Software?

[psyjax]

I have read stallman, hes a smart guy! No denying that, and his ideas are revolutionary.

But there is no denying that money, and proprietary software have created good things in the industry and indeed pushed it forward in many ways. Im sure you could argue  either way on this, but the point at hand is this:

Why shouldent a programmer who works hard at his code, not be able to sell it? Why should he not be able to reap the benifits?

Should writers be forced to allow everyone to distribute photocopys of their hard work?

Should studios allow their movies to be duplicated by third parties and distributed freely?

What is so bad about proprietary software?

I mean, free software is fantastic too! And it's a great idea. But I don't see what makes you evil if you sell someone bianarys you worked hard on.

Now, to some extent I agree. Maybe copywright laws like those on Drugs or books should be imposed. Laws that say you can keep the source closed for only X amount of years, before you have to realease it to the public. This would ensure returns for both parties neh?

That's one idea.

Well, heres the debate. Why, or why not free software?

My personal opinion is, if it's well made and the price is right, I don't mind paying.

[slave]

I'll try my best to reply to your points!  Here goes,

 

quote:I have read stallman, hes a smart guy! No denying that, and his ideas are revolutionary.

But there is no denying that money, and proprietary software have created good things in the industry and indeed pushed it forward in many ways. Im sure you could argue either way on this, but the point at hand is this:

It is true that our proprietary software industry encourages programmers to produce something.  But is it what society really needs?

 

quote:
Why shouldent a programmer who works hard at his code, not be able to sell it?

He most certainly should be able to sell it!  Ther e is nothing in the GPL that says you can't sell software.


 

quote:
Why should he not be able to reap the benifits?

Of what, mistreating other people?  I think not.

 

quote:
Should writers be forced to allow everyone to distribute photocopys of their hard work?

You've changed the subject here, but I suppose some of the ideas of free software could be applied to other things like this.  The way you word this puts it in a bad light in my opinion.  The question is, should writers be allowed to deny the entire world the freedom to make copies of a book he/she has written?

 

quote:
Should studios allow their movies to be duplicated by third parties and distributed freely?

Why not?

 

quote:
What is so bad about proprietary software?

It divides, dominates, and restricts the users of software, supposedly for the benefit of the public, but really for the benefit of the software owners.  I could elaborate or you could read this excellent paper on the GNU website:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

 

quote:
I mean, free software is fantastic too! And it's a great idea. But I don't see what makes you evil if you sell someone bianarys you worked hard on.

And there's nothing wrong with this.  Anyone can sell GPL software.  It seems you are trying to introduce a red herring here, since it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

quote:
Now, to some extent I agree. Maybe copywright laws like those on Drugs or books should be imposed. Laws that say you can keep the source closed for only X amount of years, before you have to realease it to the public. This would ensure returns for both parties neh?

That would be a start for sure.  As it is copyright was intended to be temporary by our founding fathers; it says so in the constitution.  And the ONLY reason copyright was instated was for the public's good, not so a few people could get rich.

 

quote:
My personal opinion is, if it's well made and the price is right, I don't mind paying.

You know, I still buy some games and they're non-free software.  I don't think it's wrong to use non-free software, but I do think it's wrong to write it.

[Fett101]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
You know, I still buy some games and they're non-free software.  I don't think it's wrong to use non-free software, but I do think it's wrong to write it.

So... it's bad to make drugs, but OK to use them?

[billy_gates]

When you say the GPL doesn't say anything against selling software, in effect it does.  the GPL, if I understand it correctly, you can change it and/or redistribute it however you like.  This means that theoretically you can only sell one license of your software.  Then, theoretically everyone else could get it for free.  Now, I like free software.  Its cool not having to pay for stuff.  However, the rights you want to give people in the software world do not exist in any other world.  For instance:
If I buy a brand new car, do I demand or expect to recieve the blue prints for the car? no.
With my new car can I just take it, copy it, and give the copy to someone else.  Now in the real world it is impossible to do this, in the software world it is not, but I think the same idea should apply.
The only thing I'm a little mad about in proprietary software, is your not allowed to use the code or any part of the software if you find it yourself, by means of reverse engineering or something (i think).  However, in my car example you can take the engine apart and find out how it works.

Basically, I think software should apply to our lives just as everything else does.  Digital "stuff" shouldn't be different than physical "stuff."  Unless of course the person that made the software wants to allow you to use it in ways that you wouldn't be able to do in the physical world.

Thats my personal opinion of not how free software is bad, and not how proprietary software is good, but that they are both neutral and neither one of the two kinds should be able to take the rights away from the other kind.


*EDIT*
I just thought of something.  I'm gonna get flamed for it, but here it goes.

The free softwarers say that proprietary software is designed to take people's freedome away, so it should be not allowed or abolished in some way.  But don't you see, now your taking their freedoms away.  Its the same difference.  I think all people have the "RIGHT" to do whatever they want with their software, including screw, seperate, strip of rights for that software as they wish as long as the end user agrees to it in the EULA.  I guess you could say I'm a pro choice.  People have the right to make proprietary software.  People have the right to make free software, and no one should be able to take away the right of anyone to do those things, or anything else for that matter.

[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain ]

[slave]

quote:So... it's bad to make drugs, but OK to use them?

Please discontinue the use of faulty analogies. There is nothing wrong with using non-free software *if* you feel that the software is "good enough" to justify losing your freedom to share, study, and modify it.  In my opinion nothing is that good except for works that only serve a purly aesthetic purpose, like books or games or movies.  I'm not about to miss the Return of the King just because it's illegal to share it.  Also I would play Free computer games in a second if there were a lot around.  Sadly there aren't.  I will not hold a grudge if some of you choose to use non-free software like OS X and Photoshop, but I can get by just fine without it, and it seems like you're giving up your freedom for no reason, what with the alternatives like Linux and GIMP. (don't flame me please!)  On the other hand some people have no interest in modifying their software or copying it, so to each his own really.  In any case, if you use non-free software you're only hurting yourself perhaps, not other people.

[slave]

quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
When you say the GPL doesn't say anything against selling software, in effect it does.  the GPL, if I understand it correctly, you can change it and/or redistribute it however you like.  This means that theoretically you can only sell one license of your software.  Then, theoretically everyone else could get it for free.  Now, I like free software.  Its cool not having to pay for stuff.  However, the rights you want to give people in the software world do not exist in any other world.  For instance:
If I buy a brand new car, do I demand or expect to recieve the blue prints for the car? no.
With my new car can I just take it, copy it, and give the copy to someone else.  Now in the real world it is impossible to do this, in the software world it is not, but I think the same idea should apply.
The only thing I'm a little mad about in proprietary software, is your not allowed to use the code or any part of the software if you find it yourself, by means of reverse engineering or something (i think).  However, in my car example you can take the engine apart and find out how it works.

Basically, I think software should apply to our lives just as everything else does.  Digital "stuff" shouldn't be different than physical "stuff."  Unless of course the person that made the software wants to allow you to use it in ways that you wouldn't be able to do in the physical world.

Thats my personal opinion of not how free software is bad, and not how proprietary software is good, but that they are both neutral and neither one of the two kinds should be able to take the rights away from the other kind.

I will respond to all this with one question:  If, someday in the future, we are able to cheaply replicate material objects such as computers and food and cars, do you think people should have the freedom to make copies of these things or not?

Considering the enormous benefits of such a technology, I think it would be disasterous not to do so.  It is the same with digital technology.

[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

[slave]

As a matter of interest, I'll list all the software I have on my computer that is non-free.  I encourage others to do the same, because I'm curious  

1. binary nvidia drivers (yukk!)
2. warcraft 3
3. winex (actually most of winex is free but to get the damn copy protection software you have to get the prepackaged files and they aren't free)
4. neverwinter nights
5. half-life

That's it.  You know, practically all of these are games, it makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a bad idea to start encouraging more Free game development, maybe with a website or something.  People could donate to their favorite game project until enough funds were met to complete the game.  And many people enjoy making games just for the fun of it, too.  All we need is to make a warcraft clone and an rpg, and then we can have plenty of fun without using any non-free software.  Look at counter-strike, it's free (except the engine part) and yet it is probably the most popular game on the net.

[psyjax]

I agree in some respects with giving up your freedoms. Certain Drakonian EULA's attest to that. But, I don't see whats wrong with software with a resonable EULA.

Maybe one that says, you can copy this as many times for your own personal use but you cant spread it around to everyone you meet. Is this so bad?

I mean seriously, it is sort of a good faith mesure by the publisher to begin with concidering that their not gonna send the FBI after you if you pirat it or not (I mean imagine the cops going after everyone with a stolen programm or two, that's gotta be half of america.)

Games are a good example. Why on earth, in an industry that's driven by unique and inspired products, would you want to give it all away?

I mean Games are like artwork. It takes a person or a grupe of persons to come up with a unique vision then execute it. Not only that, but it's a programm that serves no use other than to entertain. If it was OSS, were would the money come to produce it, and what the heck would motivate anyone to buy it, when they could get it for free?

[EDIT: not that all games are non-free, but the vast majority. I think for the above reasons.]

[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]

[slave]

quote: *EDIT*
I just thought of something. I'm gonna get flamed for it, but here it goes.

The free softwarers say that proprietary software is designed to take people's freedome away, so it should be not allowed or abolished in some way. But don't you see, now your taking their freedoms away. Its the same difference. I think all people have the "RIGHT" to do whatever they want with their software, including screw, seperate, strip of rights for that software as they wish as long as the end user agrees to it in the EULA. I guess you could say I'm a pro choice. People have the right to make proprietary software. People have the right to make free software, and no one should be able to take away the right of anyone to do those things, or anything else for that matter.

You're right insofar as that I agree that you can write software and refuse to give people access to the source code.  People should have the freedom to do that, even Stallman would say that.  It's a jerk-ish thing to do, but it should be allowed.  What shouldn't be allowed are these harsh measures the software owners use to scare people into not sharing software.  That is wrong, and infringes on the public's freedom.

[slave]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
I agree in some respects with giving up your freedoms. Certain Drakonian EULA's attest to that. But, I don't see whats wrong with software with a resonable EULA.

Maybe one that says, you can copy this as many times for your own personal use but you cant spread it around to everyone you meet. Is this so bad?

I mean seriously, it is sort of a good faith mesure by the publisher to begin with concidering that their not gonna send the FBI after you if you pirat it or not (I mean imagine the cops going after everyone with a stolen programm or two, that's gotta be half of america.)

Games are a good example. Why on earth, in an industry that's driven by unique and inspired products, would you want to give it all away?

I mean Games are like artwork. It takes a person or a grupe of persons to come up with a unique vision then execute it. Not only that, but it's a programm that serves no use other than to entertain. If it was OSS, were would the money come to produce it, and what the heck would motivate anyone to buy it, when they could get it for free?

[EDIT: not that all games are non-free, but the vast majority. I think for the above reasons.]

[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]

So you would agree that it's more important that certain things be Free than other things.  Like operating systems for example?

When I say "Free" what I really mean is access to the source code in addition to being able to share  the software.  All published software should have *no* restrictions on copying, but it is up to the developer if they want to give people access to the source code or not.

Another thing, I think EULAS in all their incarnations are evil.  If I write a program, and you obtain a copy, I shouldn't have the power to tell you how to use the software.  No one should.  Now before people start attacking the GPL, let me clarify things.  The GPL isn't a EULA, it's simply something that you must accept before you can distribute the software.  It is illegal to distribute it otherwise, since only the GPL gives you that power.  That's what copyleft is all about.  It doesn't say anything about how you can use the software, in fact, you could use it for whatever purpose you wanted.

Imagine if sandwiches came with EULAS, someone could make it illegal to eat them on certain days, or they expired after 4 hours of purchace, or you couldn't peek inside to see what kind of sauce they put in it, or attempt to add or change it with your own sauce.  That would suck.

[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
So you would agree that it's more important that certain things be Free than other things.  Like operating systems for example?

Ya sure, but that's not to say that some OS's shoulden't be free. I see no problem with paying money for a well engeneered proprietary OS from a respected company... *cough*... OSX... *cough*  

 

quote:When I say "Free" what I really mean is access to the source code in addition to being able to share  the software.  All published software should have *no* restrictions on copying, but it is up to the developer if they want to give people access to the source code or not.

Well, let me ask you this, if all publishers allowed you to copy willie nillie, and distribute their code for free. What is to stop everyone from just sharing copys?

You would say, this is a good thing! I would say, what if you wanted to make money? I mean say you sold your OS for 50bucks, and it came with everything in it. One guy buys it, and gives it to 100 friends, those friends give it to 100 firends etc. etc. WHat do you get for youre years of R&D, time, labour, market reserch, etc etc. 50bucks... that sucks ass IMHO.

I mean sure, you could be like RedHat or Mandrake who sell support. But people seem to just give them money out of the goodness of their heart, and most folks who run Linux are real DIY about it, and could care less about support.

In tern companies like Mandrake are strugglin to stay in the black, and RedHat has to relie on proprietary buissness deals with big wigs like IBM.

The OSS modle is well and good for Hobyist software, or perhapse for Software components, but in a free Market economy sorry. For it to succed the entire capitalist modle will need to be revised. But that is another topic.

Moving right along...

What bout companys like ID, and Apple, who release major components of their software to the public? This is good.

And if someone is so bent out of shape about getting the code, they could break open their ASM books and reverse engeneer everything  

[slave]

I can see the economic issues facing software development, but I contend that there are much better ways to fund software instead of creating these artificial restrictions.  Even a hardware tax of 2% that went to funding Free software would be a better use of money than what we do now!

And Linux ain't no hobby OS!  Hehe.

[Calum]

there is a big difference between "free speech" and "free lunch" which many people do not understand.

the spirit of the GPL is not intuitive, so it does need explaining to a lot of people. The rules of it are that if you release software under the GPL, you must also provide the source code, with full modification and redistribution rights, to anyone who receives a copy of the program in any form. In this way it is identical to what is known as the BSD licence (a lot of programs including X and FreeBSD are released under similar licences). This means you can charge for it, but the person who receives it can give it, or a modified version away for free if they like, or they can also charge for it. This is fair. if the product is worth it, people will pay regardless of some guy giving unsupported copies away. The only restriction is that anything based on GPL code must itself also be released under the GPL.

when shareware was invented, it worked. that was when some guy wrote a database program and encouraged people to copy it. tired of answering support phone calls in the evening, he introduced a splash screen in his database, saying people could only get support if they sent him a donation of $15. a lot of people did, and he was able to quit his job and do his database full time. he ended up increasing the price over time and found that there was a peak price that people would not go over (US$85 at the time, sometime in the 1980s). Now the only difference here is that the source code was not available. All the users were allowed to use the program for free for however long they wanted, but if they wanted support by phone, they paid their money, and the programmer got to quit his job as a result of the money.

Tell me that's not fair. the GPL takes it one step futher, allowing the users themselves to become the programmers, and perhaps they too could quit their jobs, if their code is good enough. i am NOT in any way in favour of bad code being sold simply because of restrictive licences, and that's what this is really all about. it is NOT about a free lunch, it is about free speech.

The BSD licences incidentally are often held up by advocates to be much less restrictive than the GPL, to use BSD code in your program you simply need to include a copyright notice mentioning the university of california somewhere in your product. You can charge for it, and you can keep the code secret. that's why there are so many proprietary versions of XWindows around, because greedy bastards keep legally using X as a base for their proprietary versions of it. microsoft have made who knows how much money from WINNT and it's derivatives, but the TCP/IP stack in WINNT, Win2k and WINXP is taken for free from the BSD operating system! that's why i prefer a GPL that forces people not to restrict other people's freedom.

[Pantso]

Needless to say that I agree completely with Linux User and Calum. After all, we started along with OpenOpen and maintain a whole page about the benefits of Free Software.

Free software is indeed a breakthrough in the software market. Stallman's ideas were and are truly revolutionary. Why you may ask. Well, simply because it gives people TOTAL FREEDOM! Freedom to share, modify and redistribute the program and all of that without violating the respective program's copyrights.

If one wishes to charge for Free Software, one may very well do so. This, unfortunately is the most common misconception among many end-users, who don't seem to realize how a person can make software under the GPL and charge for it. Well he/she definitely can, so please don't confuse the term "free software" with a "free" -as in for no cost- program.

If I were to sum up what free software means in one word, then the word I'd use would be Altruism. That is, putting the community above yourself, helping people and getting help yourself.  

[Calum]

well, yes, but the point of this thread is really "Open Source - what's in it for me?" so telling people to be altruistic is only turning them off. this is more like it:  

quote:Panos:
all of that without violating the respective program's copyrights.

sadly, english is always going to have a problem defining the difference between liberation and zero-cost when it comes to talking about things that are 'free'.