Why Free Software?

[psyjax]

I think my whole cavet is, that why can't commercial and open source software exist together?

I mean, why do some have an attitude that it's one way or the other.

Software that is made for OSS is done with that in mind. But things like games draw on resourcess and budgets that OSS could never support, and release under OSS would be counterproductive to it's development.

Games are an example were Mr. X would make one copy and charge a dollar only to have Mr. Z sell 100 copys and make 100bucks.

This is not a good thing, cuz Mr. Z isn't doing shit. Creating a distribution chain isn't cutting it in this world of High speed internet and Kaaza. Furethernmore, Mr. Z didn't spend his sweat and blood to make the software.

This is not a Star Trek replicator, this is not some kind of great reasource that can be duplicated, these are products created by people and intended for various purposes. I don't know what you folks are thinking, but software ain't gonna end world hunger, ain't gonna cure cancer.

Those who wan't to sell their code and Bianarys can do so for resonable prices, break even, and still cut a proffit. There is nothing wrong for this, and if he does become famous there is no reason he dosn't deserve it. Bill Roper, Richard Gariott, Steve Mertsky, Mark Blank, John Carmack, Douglas Adams,  Warren Specter, etc. etc. etc. Are not evil men who sold things, nor are they evil men undeserved of their fame. They created things that never existed, wonderfull games, lavish works of art, and guess what, people payd them the $20-40 buck a copy because what they made was good, of quality, and deserved of the money.

OSS is great, and those who want to contribute to it are saints. But it dosn't make some one a bad guy to want to sell software.

[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]

[slave]

John Carmack could release the Doom 3 engine under the GPL as soon as it came out and he would make the same amount of money.  He could dual-license it where people who wanted to put it in their non-free games would have to pay a license fee, but if people wanted to make free games with it or just hack it they could do that too.  Kind of like how troll tech licenses QT under the GPL for non-proprietary use.

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
John Carmack could release the Doom 3 engine under the GPL as soon as it came out and he would make the same amount of money.  He could dual-license it where people who wanted to put it in their non-free games would have to pay a license fee, but if people wanted to make free games with it or just hack it they could do that too.  Kind of like how troll tech licenses QT under the GPL for non-proprietary use.

There you go, Bungie used to do this too pre-M$. I think this is good! It gives back to the community, allows folks to learn from the software, yet it dosn't undermine teh sales of his actual product. I think this isa good model, and an admirable one. Just because the Doom 3 game it'self may be for sale, dosn't make Carmack evil! He needs the profits for a) compensation for his efforts b) to feed his family c) to feed his workers d) to keep makeing great games.

These are the sort's of licencess I think people should be distributing under. Because to me they have the good of both worlds mixed in. People can learn from the code, and use it for a price, or none if your a nice guy.

If OS's were done this way... OS X   , Office Suites etc.

Do some companies abuse their position absolutely, M$ and Adobe are some examples, but 40-50 for a copy of Doom III ain't hardly gonna break your wallet and you know your getting a great product already. I see no problem with this, Carmack and crew get my money cuz their stuff is quality.

[Laukev7]

Linux User forgets that, like Mac OS X, it is only the engine of the games that are released under the GPL, not the game itself.

Open source should, indeed, cooperate with proprietary software, rather than replace it. While the open source model is very fast and efficient at repairing bugs, it does not pay the graphic designers who make the wall textures. You could certainly argue that GIMP is free, and that there are many talented artists, but one still has to buy the necessary equipment, such as cameras, to get realistic pictures (and not just any picture you would pop in a scanner).

I know that the issue is free software, not open source, but the financing problem is the same for both, and this shows in many open source games out there IMO (I'm referring to non-commercial games BTW).

[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: laukev7 ]

[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: laukev7 ]

[flap]

quote:I think my whole cavet is, that why can't commercial and open source software exist together?

They can. "open source" software and free software can *be* commercial software. I think you mean "Why can't free software and proprietary software co-exist?" Remember, it's about freedom and not money. To quote from gnu.org, "free software is better than proprietary software in the same way that freedom is better than tyranny."

Proprietary software shouldn't exist alongside free software for the same reason tyranny shouldn't exist alongside freedom. It's a bad thing for society. Full stop.

 

quote:This is not a Star Trek replicator, this is not some kind of great reasource that can be duplicated, these are products created by people and intended for various purposes. I don't know what you folks are thinking, but software ain't gonna end world hunger, ain't gonna cure cancer.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The replicator analogy is a hypothetical one I used to express the benefits of copying. No-one's saying software's going to specifically "end world hunger", but it's still of great benefit to people.

 

quote:They created things that never existed, wonderfull games, lavish works of art, and guess what, people payd them the $20-40 buck a copy because what they made was good, of quality, and deserved of the money.

I don't believe for a second that they deserved the money. To suggest that those people deserve more money than a hard working doctor, teacher or miner because they happen to have a rare ability is the worst type of elitism. I think it's a sad thing when people celebrate the excessive fortunes of individual people as if it's a good thing, when it's actually just the sign of a skewed economy.

 

quote:OSS is great, and those who want to contribute to it are saints. But it dosn't make some one a bad guy to want to sell software.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with selling software. There is something wrong though with telling people not to copy software. And you don't have to be a saint to want to live in a better society.

[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]