4 ms·

Your view is different then mine. You see, I take care about the consequences of my actions. Sure, it's much more convinient to use adobe acroread, using MS Off

by aflag 19y ago

Your view is different then mine. You see, I take care about the consequences of my actions. Sure, it's much more convinient to use adobe acroread, using MS Office is probably a lot easier than OpenOffice. But by using such software I'm contributing with ideas that are not so good for society. This essay explains a lot of my point of view towards software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html I think finding what work best for me is just too selfish, I rather find what I think is best for everyone. Also, I realise that, althought proprietary software may be the best thing for me in the short-term, in the long run, free software will be much better for me. It will give me more freedom. Now, I was hoping to have a serious discussion, but you call me a fanboy (althought for some reason people are downmodding me like crazy). Are you want to troll me?

brk 19y ago
I was not meaning to call you a fanboy directly, although I guess by your own admission you do fit the description. I care about the consequences of my actions as well (or at least some actions, I am not to be held responsible when beer is involved), but free software != the absolute answer for everything. Do you not believe that everyone deserves to be paid for their work? Paying for software creates a cash flow for the company, which can be used to fund development, maintenance and enhancements. Some companies use that cash flow (IMO) in better ways than others, and that factors in to how I make my choices.
- aflag 19y ago
  Of course free software is not the answer for everything. It's just a good effort towards freedom when it comes to software development and use. I appreciate that freedom very much, that's why I like free software. Free software doesn't mean you can't charge for them, it only means that the user of the software trully owns it, as opposed to simple having the right to use it. Where I live it's very common to see companies that will write management software for other companies and sell it to them. I don't see any reason why they couldn't be selling free software, it would be very benefitial for the client because he would be able to even maintain the software if they want to. Or they can even contract a different company for maintaining the software. You give your client a lot of freedom this way.
  - wanorris 19y ago
    In the enterprise software business (and typically, the desktop software business as well), the most straightforward business model is to offer a product and charge people for it. That way, you get paid whenever people use your software (excepting for piracy). If you release your software under a free software license, users are not only free to look at the source and modify it, they are free to redistribute it to others who have not paid for it. If you can find a way to make free software work for you in a way that still allows you to earn a good living developing your software (such as by providing services), then more power to you. But for-profit software companies are not producing non-free software simply through myopia and ignorance.
    - aflag 19y ago
      I haven't really taken the time to analyse that. Most of my work is academic and I fear I may not have enough economics background. I do have an early idea that it sounds more like a myth than a fact. Let's say a company wants to outsource the development of some software they need. They go ahead and contract your company. You develop it and sell it to them for a certain price. Even if the license is free it's not very likely that they will redistribute it for other companies, and even if they do, it probably won't fit their needs just right. OTOH, they will be able to call other companies (other than yours) to maintain your software. So they have that extra freedom. And it doesn't really hurt business because, if you do a better job maintaining your software than other people, chances are your client won't switch. There's also the case of the end desktop user. That's probably harder territory for earning money with free software. But I've never seen some company selling their software but giving the user a package with the GPL-licensed code. Sure, after a while there would be lots of other non-official sites to download the program from, but doesn't that already happen with all the proprietary softwares nowadays? And it's not like anti-piracy laws are doing any good against it. This way people may do their own derivative work, for which they might even charge just like you. Now you'll have competition, so things get more interesting and you have to make better stuff. Why can't that work? You can still charge for constant patches you deliver (though they are all GPL'd). If it's an online game, you might charge for your server, and so on. A big part of software nowadays seem to be services, anyway. Say google opens the source for their search engine. Why would you turn to a different site other than google.com? It would make great research environment, nonetheless. Even google could gain from it. So, what I'm saying is that I don't see a reason why people can't earn money while keeping their software free. Even though things might get a little different from what they are today. That's good, though, because today is far from perfect. And I think free software is a move in the right direction.
krschultz 19y ago
This is not an either or thing. If you get people to use 99% free software and 1% not, that is a lot better than 100% not. As more people jump into the ecosystem it makes the manufacturers take it more seriously and you will see more and more stuff get opened up. If you want 100% free software there are many distros for you other than Ubuntu, Ubuntu aims as being easy not being perfectly free. Just because it uses GPL software doesn't mean the project has to agree with Richard Stallman. I would say Ubuntu falls a lot more in the Linus Torvalds idea of practicality and if you want the Richard Stallman approach Debian is probably a better alternative.

by aflag 19y ago

brk 19y ago

I was not meaning to call you a fanboy directly, although I guess by your own admission you do fit the description. I care about the consequences of my actions as well (or at least some actions, I am not to be held responsible when beer is involved), but free software != the absolute answer for everything. Do you not believe that everyone deserves to be paid for their work? Paying for software creates a cash flow for the company, which can be used to fund development, maintenance and enhancements. Some companies use that cash flow (IMO) in better ways than others, and that factors in to how I make my choices.

aflag 19y ago
Of course free software is not the answer for everything. It's just a good effort towards freedom when it comes to software development and use. I appreciate that freedom very much, that's why I like free software. Free software doesn't mean you can't charge for them, it only means that the user of the software trully owns it, as opposed to simple having the right to use it. Where I live it's very common to see companies that will write management software for other companies and sell it to them. I don't see any reason why they couldn't be selling free software, it would be very benefitial for the client because he would be able to even maintain the software if they want to. Or they can even contract a different company for maintaining the software. You give your client a lot of freedom this way.
- wanorris 19y ago
  In the enterprise software business (and typically, the desktop software business as well), the most straightforward business model is to offer a product and charge people for it. That way, you get paid whenever people use your software (excepting for piracy). If you release your software under a free software license, users are not only free to look at the source and modify it, they are free to redistribute it to others who have not paid for it. If you can find a way to make free software work for you in a way that still allows you to earn a good living developing your software (such as by providing services), then more power to you. But for-profit software companies are not producing non-free software simply through myopia and ignorance.
  - aflag 19y ago
    I haven't really taken the time to analyse that. Most of my work is academic and I fear I may not have enough economics background. I do have an early idea that it sounds more like a myth than a fact. Let's say a company wants to outsource the development of some software they need. They go ahead and contract your company. You develop it and sell it to them for a certain price. Even if the license is free it's not very likely that they will redistribute it for other companies, and even if they do, it probably won't fit their needs just right. OTOH, they will be able to call other companies (other than yours) to maintain your software. So they have that extra freedom. And it doesn't really hurt business because, if you do a better job maintaining your software than other people, chances are your client won't switch. There's also the case of the end desktop user. That's probably harder territory for earning money with free software. But I've never seen some company selling their software but giving the user a package with the GPL-licensed code. Sure, after a while there would be lots of other non-official sites to download the program from, but doesn't that already happen with all the proprietary softwares nowadays? And it's not like anti-piracy laws are doing any good against it. This way people may do their own derivative work, for which they might even charge just like you. Now you'll have competition, so things get more interesting and you have to make better stuff. Why can't that work? You can still charge for constant patches you deliver (though they are all GPL'd). If it's an online game, you might charge for your server, and so on. A big part of software nowadays seem to be services, anyway. Say google opens the source for their search engine. Why would you turn to a different site other than google.com? It would make great research environment, nonetheless. Even google could gain from it. So, what I'm saying is that I don't see a reason why people can't earn money while keeping their software free. Even though things might get a little different from what they are today. That's good, though, because today is far from perfect. And I think free software is a move in the right direction.

krschultz 19y ago

This is not an either or thing. If you get people to use 99% free software and 1% not, that is a lot better than 100% not. As more people jump into the ecosystem it makes the manufacturers take it more seriously and you will see more and more stuff get opened up. If you want 100% free software there are many distros for you other than Ubuntu, Ubuntu aims as being easy not being perfectly free. Just because it uses GPL software doesn't mean the project has to agree with Richard Stallman. I would say Ubuntu falls a lot more in the Linus Torvalds idea of practicality and if you want the Richard Stallman approach Debian is probably a better alternative.