Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: psyjax on 24 April 2003, 07:19
-
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.
-
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:
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?
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?
Of what, mistreating other people? I think not.
quote:
Should writers be forced to allow everyone to distribute photocopys of their hard work?
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?
Why not?
quote:
What is so bad about proprietary software?
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 (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.
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?
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.
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.
-
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.
So... it's bad to make drugs, but OK to use them?
-
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 ]
-
quote:
So... it's bad to make drugs, but OK to use them?
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.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
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.
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 ]
-
As a matter of interest, I'll list all the software I have on my computer that is non-free. I encourage others to do the same, because I'm curious ;)
1. binary nvidia drivers (yukk!)
2. warcraft 3
3. winex (actually most of winex is free but to get the damn copy protection software you have to get the prepackaged files and they aren't free)
4. neverwinter nights
5. half-life
That's it. You know, practically all of these are games, it makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a bad idea to start encouraging more Free game development, maybe with a website or something. People could donate to their favorite game project until enough funds were met to complete the game. And many people enjoy making games just for the fun of it, too. All we need is to make a warcraft clone and an rpg, and then we can have plenty of fun without using any non-free software. Look at counter-strike, it's free (except the engine part) and yet it is probably the most popular game on the net.
-
I agree in some respects with giving up your freedoms. Certain Drakonian EULA's attest to that. But, I don't see whats wrong with software with a resonable EULA.
Maybe one that says, you can copy this as many times for your own personal use but you cant spread it around to everyone you meet. Is this so bad?
I mean seriously, it is sort of a good faith mesure by the publisher to begin with concidering that their not gonna send the FBI after you if you pirat it or not (I mean imagine the cops going after everyone with a stolen programm or two, that's gotta be half of america.)
Games are a good example. Why on earth, in an industry that's driven by unique and inspired products, would you want to give it all away?
I mean Games are like artwork. It takes a person or a grupe of persons to come up with a unique vision then execute it. Not only that, but it's a programm that serves no use other than to entertain. If it was OSS, were would the money come to produce it, and what the heck would motivate anyone to buy it, when they could get it for free?
[EDIT: not that all games are non-free, but the vast majority. I think for the above reasons.]
[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]
-
quote:
*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.
You're right insofar as that I agree that you can write software and refuse to give people access to the source code. People should have the freedom to do that, even Stallman would say that. It's a jerk-ish thing to do, but it should be allowed. What shouldn't be allowed are these harsh measures the software owners use to scare people into not sharing software. That is wrong, and infringes on the public's freedom.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
I agree in some respects with giving up your freedoms. Certain Drakonian EULA's attest to that. But, I don't see whats wrong with software with a resonable EULA.
Maybe one that says, you can copy this as many times for your own personal use but you cant spread it around to everyone you meet. Is this so bad?
I mean seriously, it is sort of a good faith mesure by the publisher to begin with concidering that their not gonna send the FBI after you if you pirat it or not (I mean imagine the cops going after everyone with a stolen programm or two, that's gotta be half of america.)
Games are a good example. Why on earth, in an industry that's driven by unique and inspired products, would you want to give it all away?
I mean Games are like artwork. It takes a person or a grupe of persons to come up with a unique vision then execute it. Not only that, but it's a programm that serves no use other than to entertain. If it was OSS, were would the money come to produce it, and what the heck would motivate anyone to buy it, when they could get it for free?
[EDIT: not that all games are non-free, but the vast majority. I think for the above reasons.]
[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]
So you would agree that it's more important that certain things be Free than other things. Like operating systems for example?
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.
Another thing, I think EULAS in all their incarnations are evil. If I write a program, and you obtain a copy, I shouldn't have the power to tell you how to use the software. No one should. Now before people start attacking the GPL, let me clarify things. The GPL isn't a EULA, it's simply something that you must accept before you can distribute the software. It is illegal to distribute it otherwise, since only the GPL gives you that power. That's what copyleft is all about. It doesn't say anything about how you can use the software, in fact, you could use it for whatever purpose you wanted.
Imagine if sandwiches came with EULAS, someone could make it illegal to eat them on certain days, or they expired after 4 hours of purchace, or you couldn't peek inside to see what kind of sauce they put in it, or attempt to add or change it with your own sauce. That would suck.
[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
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?
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.
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Needless to say that I agree completely with Linux User and Calum. After all, we started along with OpenOpen (http://www.openopen.org) and maintain a whole page about the benefits of Free Software. (http://www.promote-opensource.org)
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. (http://smile.gif)
-
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.
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'.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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)
-
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 (http://tongue.gif)
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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 $150 on free software during the last year or so. (As opposed to zero money spent on proprietary software besides one game)
[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
Let's put some facts straight here, shall we?
1. Writing open source and free software does not mean that you can't get paid for it. Charging for your program/software is perfectly 'legitimate' under the GPL.
2. The initial source code belongs to the writer/programmer. Any changes made to the initial source code MUST be released back to the community, so the author's copyrights are NOT affected.
3. The writer gets FULL credit for writing the program. He also gets the fame he deserves. Take Mathias Ettrich for example or Miguel de Ikaza (am i spelling it correctly?). Noone forgot them. On the contrary, millions of people all over the world KNOW who they are, whereas nobody knows who wrote M$ 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.
-
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 $20-40 buck a copy because what they made was good, of quality, and deserved of the money.
OSS is great, and those who want to contribute to it are saints. But it dosn't make some one a bad guy to want to sell software.
[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]
-
John Carmack could release the Doom 3 engine under the GPL as soon as it came out and he would make the same amount of money. He could dual-license it where people who wanted to put it in their non-free games would have to pay a license fee, but if people wanted to make free games with it or just hack it they could do that too. Kind of like how troll tech licenses QT under the GPL for non-proprietary use.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
John Carmack could release the Doom 3 engine under the GPL as soon as it came out and he would make the same amount of money. He could dual-license it where people who wanted to put it in their non-free games would have to pay a license fee, but if people wanted to make free games with it or just hack it they could do that too. Kind of like how troll tech licenses QT under the GPL for non-proprietary use.
There you go, Bungie used to do this too pre-M$. 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.
-
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 ]
-
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 ]