Miscellaneous > The Lounge

Why Free Software?

<< < (3/7) > >>

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?
--- End quote ---


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.
--- End quote ---


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.
--- End quote ---

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'.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page