Why Free Software?

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
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'.

I don't think that this is only a problem to those who speak English. In fact, I don't think that this is not a language-related problem at all. It only has to do with how open-minded people really are.  

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:


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 ]

It depends on a lot of stuff.  In essence I think we would need to create a way to truly limit the copying to legal copying only, with physical objects that would be easier than with software.  If it takes money away from the developer, like you have 1 computer and you copy it 5 times, the developer just lost 5 pieces of revenue.  If it was just for convenience though, like the food, yes.  But none of this should be able to be given away or sold without money going to the original makers.

[Calum]

if the software is licenced under the GPL then all copying is legal.

you still do not get it. software will be copied. deal with it. that's it.

there is NO WAY to limit copying.
and another thing:

there is NO WAY to limit copying.

i'll just say that agin, as it is IMPORTANT:

there is NO WAY to limit copying.

you can either waste your breath trying to stop copying and having these dumbassed "wars" against "pirates" (replete with golden earrings no doubt) or you can live in the real world where software licencing and copyrights take human beings' motivations and requirements into consideration.

which do you think is easier and best in the long run?

which do you think is best for those who are successful capitalists?

(hint, the answers to those two questions is not the same)

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
if the software is licenced under the GPL then all copying is legal.

True. No one is arguing that. We are talking about software in general, and why some are so fevent that ALL of it be GPL.

 

quote:you still do not get it. software will be copied. deal with it. that's it.

This is also true, but keeping the source secret, and imposing copy licences does limit it's distribution. Big graphic design firsm will not get away stealing Photoshop for long, because it will become eveident what software they are using.

IMHO, I think this is good. I mea, sure some poor broke kid may steal a copy of Photoshop, and get really good at it, so good that he gets a job doing Photoshop work. At this point he will be able to aford his own copy, and will probably need to buy it. Shoulden't Adobe be compensated for providing the kid a means to his own success? I think so.

Perhapse a licence that has this as a clause should be devised. You can use this software if you are a broke ass mofo who needs to learn, but if your gonna profit from it you gotta pay. Anyway, that's one way of thinking of it.

 

quote:there is NO WAY to limit copying.
and another thing:

there is NO WAY to limit copying.

i'll just say that agin, as it is IMPORTANT:

there is NO WAY to limit copying.

Yes and no. Downloading a CD image is a bitch on dialup, so that's a deterent. Sometimes pricetags look alot better than leaving your modem on for two days, not to mention hopping to go someones server is fast.

Also, as mentioned above, you will be called on illigal copying should you be a big enugh company who tips thir cards given the very work they produce.

 

quote:you can either waste your breath trying to stop copying and having these dumbassed "wars" against "pirates" (replete with golden earrings no doubt) or you can live in the real world where software licencing and copyrights take human beings' motivations and requirements into consideration.

I agree with this. All I am saying is that this does not necissarly mean that all software should be released under the GPL or a similar licence. I just don't think that is appropriate in all cases.

Should EULA's be a little more realistic and less assrapist, yes, definitly. I like Apple's APSL. But that's just me  

 

quote:which do you think is easier and best in the long run?

Perhapse a newer comercial licence model that takes into acount copying and P2P distribution as actual facts. This does not necissarly need to be BSD, or GPL.

 

quote:which do you think is best for those who are successful capitalists?

I don't think either the GPL or current licencing EULA's are the optimum model for even a capitalist society. The GPL pretty much will make you no money as far as your hard work programmin goes, and other EULA's just call you a thief and make you feel bad. It's gotta be a kinda compramise or somethin.

[Fett101]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:


Please discontinue the use of faulty analogies.

Ah. I had thought you meant that you thought it was fine for you to play non-free games, but not for people to make them. Pardon.

[lazygamer]

quote:if the software is licenced under the GPL then all copying is legal.

you still do not get it. software will be copied. deal with it. that's it.

there is NO WAY to limit copying.
and another thing:

there is NO WAY to limit copying.

i'll just say that agin, as it is IMPORTANT:

there is NO WAY to limit copying.

you can either waste your breath trying to stop copying and having these dumbassed "wars" against "pirates" (replete with golden earrings no doubt) or you can live in the real world where software licencing and copyrights take human beings' motivations and requirements into consideration.

which do you think is easier and best in the long run?

which do you think is best for those who are successful capitalists?

(hint, the answers to those two questions is not the same)

Now are you certain that your not gonna flame me and go back on your statements if I were to say "Yah your right Calum, it doesn't matter if I pirate shit. Just don't pir8 that wind0ze for sure, but anything else makes no difference."

[X123]

quote:Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
.........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..........

That's like saying to someone:

I spent hours working on this piece of software. You can make copies and re-sell it whilst keeping the profits of my hard end work to yourself.

How the hell would this work?

[slave]

quote:Originally posted by The Knife Thrower:


That's like saying to someone:

I spent hours working on this piece of software. You can make copies and re-sell it whilst keeping the profits of my hard end work to yourself.

How the hell would this work?

And why not?  If somebody can sell a used Mac on ebay for $400 and somebody buys it and saves $300 over buying it from the Apple store, should Apple have the power to say "NO!  Do not buy it from him!  Only buy it from us, so we can get rich at your expense!"

Copying and sharing published information should be everyone's right, and I will always stand by that philosophy.  If you don't want people copying your product, get in the business of making things that can't be copied, like cars or something.  But I think cooperation is always more important than copyright.

[X123]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:


And why not?  If somebody can sell a used Mac on ebay for $400 and somebody buys it and saves $300 over buying it from the Apple store, should Apple have the power to say "NO!  Do not buy it from him!  Only buy it from us, so we can get rich at your expense!"

Copying and sharing published information should be everyone's right, and I will always stand by that philosophy.  If you don't want people copying your product, get in the business of making things that can't be copied, like cars or something.  But I think cooperation is always more important than copyright.

Here is an exmaple of why it's not right.

Mr Z has just created a new internet browser which is really good and costs $1 to buy.

Mr A want's to buy this piece of software so he pays $1

Mr A then says that he wants to sell it to his friend

But this is not like a selling your car to A friend. You can make copies of it.

So Mr A decides to sell copies to 100 of his friends

So Mr A gets $100 for doing fuck all

Mr Z gets $1 for 100 people to use his software which he worked to create

So this license allows some prick to make money out of what you created by paying you hardly anything compared to his profits.

[flap]

Well it's not the case that he's done "fuck-all" - he's providing the distribution service. But the question you're asking is; why is the freedom to re-sell free software an important one? Or maybe you're objecting to the right to non-commercially redistribute as well.

For free software to be really free, it has to be commercially re-distributable; if it weren't, it wouldn't be commerically viable to develop free software. An example is Mandrake making a GNU/Linux distribution based on Red Hat's. They used someone else's free software to create their own, and were free to sell it on, under the same terms, with no obligation to pay Red Hat any money.

In your example, it may be thought of as unethical for Mr A to sell 100 copies and not give anything back to Mr Z (if Mr Z isn't making enough money already), but that isn't as bad as restricting the free-ness of the software by denying users to commercially redistribute it or any derivatives of it. Ultimately, if you can't re-sell code then free software is much less attractive to business, which will hamper its take-up.

[slave]

quote:Originally posted by The Knife Thrower:


Here is an exmaple of why it's not right.

Mr Z has just created a new internet browser which is really good and costs $1 to buy.

Mr A want's to buy this piece of software so he pays $1

Mr A then says that he wants to sell it to his friend

But this is not like a selling your car to A friend. You can make copies of it.

So Mr A decides to sell copies to 100 of his friends

So Mr A gets $100 for doing fuck all

Mr Z gets $1 for 100 people to use his software which he worked to create

So this license allows some prick to make money out of what you created by paying you hardly anything compared to his profits.

Mr Z (the original author of the software) is also doing fuck-all.  He's selling basically a plastic CD that costs less than $0.10 to produce for (sometimes) hundreds of dollars.  If you have a copyright monopoly you can continue to milk obscene amounts of money just by threatening anyone else who offers a lower price with lawsuits and jail.  Look as MS office.  How much has it *really* changed over the past 6 years?  Not much.
Microsoft has made billions and billions off it though.

People often compare copying programs to stealing, but it is an inapt analogy.  If I had just baked a pie and was about to eat it, I would object if somebody else ate it, because then I couldn't eat it.  For you to eat it would benefit you just as much as it hurts me.  If you make a copy of some software I have written and give it to your neighbor though, that action affects you and your friend much more than it affects me.  It only affects me indirectly.  I shouldn't have the power to force you not to share, and neither should anyone else.

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:


And why not?  If somebody can sell a used Mac on ebay for $400 and somebody buys it and saves $300 over buying it from the Apple store, should Apple have the power to say "NO!  Do not buy it from him!  Only buy it from us, so we can get rich at your expense!"

That's retarded. A used Mac depreciates in price cuz it's older, has wear and tear, and is not Brand New. Software does not suffer from any of this. Copying software essentially creates a brand new duplicate!

It's like a magic wand that duplicates BMW's. I mean seriously.

 

quote:Mr Z (the original author of the software) is also doing fuck-all. He's selling basically a plastic CD that costs less than $0.10 to produce for (sometimes) hundreds of dollars. If you have a copyright monopoly you can continue to milk obscene amounts of money just by threatening anyone else who offers a lower price with lawsuits and jail. Look as MS office. How much has it *really* changed over the past 6 years? Not much.
Microsoft has made billions and billions off it though.

This also makes no sense. The price of the CD is not at issue, the time, effort, years of computer science degrees, man hours, research and development, devotion to craft, etc. etc. etc. are all factors.

If I spend three years of my life creating the most incredible game ever, I wan't to get money for it, hell, I wanna get rich and famous for it! And quite frankly, I think I deserve that, because I made the greatest game in the world, and YOU didn't. If you don't like it, make your own game.

Now, I don't think RESONABLY priced software is a problem. The problem occurs when you have bastards like M$, and like anything else, it boils down to how much of a spinal chord you have.

There are plenty of companys out there, who don't over charge for their software, and I see no reason why, if I consider their product worthy, I shoudn't give them my money.

I do think the current licencing model should be rethought. I also think copyright time limits on source code should be imposed. I don't think Drakonian EULAS are a good thing, I think manufacturers making software purchasing more enticing is.

I think it comes down to choice. If someone is of the mind set that they wanna give their stuff away, then more power to them. But it dosn't make some one the devil cuz they feel they deserve to make a few bucks on something they worked hard on.

Thus, I have yet to be convinced that the Free-Software model is the Defacto, most moral, and most apropriate model.

[flap]

quote:Copying software essentially creates a brand new duplicate!

It's like a magic wand that duplicates BMW's. I mean seriously.

Exactly. You're saying that like it's a bad thing. We have this situation with electronic data where a useful resource can be effortlessly duplicated, and theoretically distributed to everyone on the planet, at no cost to its producer, and you're talking as if it's a bad thing.

If we ever get to the stage where we have Star Trek 'replicator' technology, where we could be in the position to solve almost all of the world's problems in a single stroke by producing unlimited supplies of food and other physical items and distribtuing them around the world, it just won't happen. Because people with your attitude will be saying "Hey, these people haven't given me money for a licence to use the replicator my company built so why should they get to eat?"

 

quote:If I spend three years of my life creating the most incredible game ever, I wan't to get money for it

That in itself is perfectly reasonable.

 

quote:hell, I wanna get rich and famous for it! And quite frankly, I think I deserve that, because I made the greatest game in the world, and YOU didn't.

This is another problem with capitalism; the myth of entitlement to that which you don't deserve. This is an insult to people who work just as hard, or harder, than games developers, or film directors, or musicians, for three years of their life and *don't* earn a fortune. And there's no reason why they should. It's perfectly acceptable for you to expect to earn a living in return for doing work, but not to feel entitled to exploit society simply because "you can".

[slave]

quote:That's retarded. A used Mac depreciates in price cuz it's older, has wear and tear, and is not Brand New. Software does not suffer from any of this. Copying software essentially creates a brand new duplicate!

Well, you can also buy brand new Macs on ebay, frequently for less cost than Apple offers.  Let me make another comparision.  It's like Apple telling you not to buy RAM from anyone but them because they lose money when you buy RAM from a company that offers a more reasonable price than the outrageous amount Apple charges on their website.


 

quote:
It's like a magic wand that duplicates BMW's. I mean seriously.

If you could do this with physical objects, I seriously hope we could put all this shitty materialist capitalist bullshit behind us once and for all.  That type of tech could potentially eliminate hunger and poverty and neediness all over the world.

 

quote:
This also makes no sense. The price of the CD is not at issue, the time, effort, years of computer science degrees, man hours, research and development, devotion to craft, etc. etc. etc. are all factors.

I don't care if it took a million years of 100 PhD's lives to write the software, it doesn't justify mistreating people for profit.  If people are going to create and sell things that can be copied, they need to get it into theird heads that being an obstructive jerk deserves a punishment, not a reward.

 

quote:
If I spend three years of my life creating the most incredible game ever, I wan't to get money for it, hell, I wanna get rich and famous for it! And quite frankly, I think I deserve that, because I made the greatest game in the world, and YOU didn't. If you don't like it, make your own game.

That's the reason you want to make art?  To be rich and famous?  I must be clueless, because I had no clue it had anything to do with that.  And no you don't deserve it if you believe your "creation" is so good it gives you the right to trample the public's freedom.
 

quote:
Now, I don't think RESONABLY priced software is a problem. The problem occurs when you have bastards like M$, and like anything else, it boils down to how much of a spinal chord you have.

I must say, I am sick of this "Let's hate MS and praise other companies for doing this same thing" business.  Adobe charges $600 for Photoshop, do you think that is overpriced?  MS charges only $400 for Office XP, after all.  And Mac OS X costs more than the OEM version of Windows XP.  ($130 vs $80 for Windows)  Not to mention you have to pay for the Mac itself, which is expensive due to Apple's stranglehold on the Mac hardware "market."

 

quote:There are plenty of companys out there, who don't over charge for their software, and I see no reason why, if I consider their product worthy, I shoudn't give them my money.

The issue here really isn't about price, it's about freedom.  I wouldn't use Mac OS X if they gave it away for zero price.

 

quote:I don't think Drakonian EULAS are a good thing, I think manufacturers making software purchasing more enticing is.

All EULAS are bad, because they tell you how and how not you can use software.  Nobody has any business telling you these things.  Let me point out again, before people attack the GPL: it is NOT a EULA.  It is a distribution license.  It says nothing about how you can use the software, all it says is if you want to distribute software that is GPL'd, you must give others the same freedom that you enjoy.  I don't think that is asking too much.

 

quote:I think it comes down to choice. If someone is of the mind set that they wanna give their stuff away, then more power to them. But it dosn't make some one the devil cuz they feel they deserve to make a few bucks on something they worked hard on.

In my mind, the only people who deserve a reward are those who write open source/free software.

That's why I've spent over $150 on free software during the last year or so.  (As opposed to zero money spent on proprietary software besides one game)

[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

[Pantso]

Let's put some facts straight here, shall we?

1. Writing open source and free software does not mean that you can't get paid for it. Charging for your program/software is perfectly 'legitimate' under the GPL.

2. The initial source code belongs to the writer/programmer. Any changes made to the initial source code MUST be released back to the community, so the author's copyrights are NOT affected.

3. The writer gets FULL credit for writing the program. He also gets the fame he deserves. Take Mathias Ettrich for example or Miguel de Ikaza (am i spelling it correctly?). Noone forgot them. On the contrary, millions of people all over the world KNOW who they are, whereas nobody knows who wrote M$ Office for example.

To Linux User:

As for OS X, I chose to PAY for it, eventhough I was completely aware that it is NOT free software.  The same goes for my iBook. Noone forces you to buy a Mac and get OS X. On the other hand, you ARE forced to get that OEM version of Win XPee along with your new x86 machine. The point I'm trying to make here is that we shouldn't be comparing unequal things.