3 ms·

The same holds true for free software: It may die although some people still care. All it needs is the lack of developers. Hiring someone to maintain software i

The same holds true for free software: It may die although some people still care. All it needs is the lack of developers. Hiring someone to maintain software is usually bloody expensive and organizing a fund raiser has high transaction costs. Your examples make no sense: Windows still exists and most games are played one or twice. Sure, old versions are not available, anymore, but who want to run them, anyway? The same holds true for old versions of free software: They may be still available somewhere but who wants to run them, anyway? While you're talking about dieing software, what about creating software? Can you "guarantee" that a particular free software will be created if a large number of people want it? I think not. Proprietary software, on the other hand, comes close to a guarantee if there's a chance of it being in demand. This is why sociaty needs both -- and why Mister Stallman is wrong to say, only "free" software should exist.

loup-vaillant 17y ago
Of course free software can die even if some people still care. I just think this is a matter of threshold. Below a certain threshold of "number of people times dedication", any software can die. I just think this threshold is higher, or at least less predictable, in the case of proprietary software. My examples makes no sense to you, but they make sense to me: I was thinking about a particular Windows95 game which I would have loved to see ported on the Pandora [1] : Earth siege 2. This is not possible because there is no source code to port, and emulation is out of question (the Pandora isn't powerful enough). The only reasonable solution I have is to clone it, almost from scratch. About creating software, I agree that some (many?) software couldn't have existed as free software (only). However, this is not a proof that society needs them[2]. Even then, this does not prove Stallman wrong: he cares about freedom. Availability and quality are secondary to him. [1]: www.openpandora.org [2]: By the way, if society does need them, then I think the government should write it or finance it.

loup-vaillant 17y ago

Of course free software can die even if some people still care. I just think this is a matter of threshold. Below a certain threshold of "number of people times dedication", any software can die. I just think this threshold is higher, or at least less predictable, in the case of proprietary software. My examples makes no sense to you, but they make sense to me: I was thinking about a particular Windows95 game which I would have loved to see ported on the Pandora [1] : Earth siege 2. This is not possible because there is no source code to port, and emulation is out of question (the Pandora isn't powerful enough). The only reasonable solution I have is to clone it, almost from scratch. About creating software, I agree that some (many?) software couldn't have existed as free software (only). However, this is not a proof that society needs them[2]. Even then, this does not prove Stallman wrong: he cares about freedom. Availability and quality are secondary to him. [1]: www.openpandora.org [2]: By the way, if society does need them, then I think the government should write it or finance it.