Miscellaneous > The Lounge
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:
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
Of what, mistreating other people? I think not.
quote:
Should writers be forced to allow everyone to distribute photocopys of their hard work?
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
Why not?
quote:
What is so bad about proprietary software?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version