Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Why Free Software?
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.
--- End 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.
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!"
--- End 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!
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 $0.10 to produce for (sometimes) hundreds of dollars. If you have a copyright monopoly you can continue to milk obscene amounts of money just by threatening anyone else who offers a lower price with lawsuits and jail. Look as MS office. How much has it *really* changed over the past 6 years? Not much.
Microsoft has made billions and billions off it though.
--- End quote ---
This also makes no sense. The price of the CD is not at issue, the time, effort, years of computer science degrees, man hours, research and development, devotion to craft, etc. etc. etc. are all factors.
If I spend three years of my life creating the most incredible game ever, I wan't to get money for it, hell, I wanna get rich and famous for it! And quite frankly, I think I deserve that, because I made the greatest game in the world, and YOU didn't. If you don't like it, make your own game.
Now, I don't think RESONABLY priced software is a problem. The problem occurs when you have bastards like M$, 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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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!
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version