4 ms·
I'm personally against the idea of selling software. It doesn't have any real value because it costs nothing to reproduce. Sure, the development costs money, an
by windsurfer 18y ago
I'm personally against the idea of selling software. It doesn't have any real value because it costs nothing to reproduce. Sure, the development costs money, and you need to live, but there are other more morally correct ways of obtaining cash than selling something that should be free.
For more, see fsf.org
- yan 18y agoBeing against selling software because it costs nothing to reproduce implies that selling other more "tangible" products is only priced to recoup reproduction cost. Pick any product that you aren't opposed to selling and think about what percentage of the price is there to recoup production cost.
- corentin 18y agoValue is in the eye of the beholder. If people are willing to pay 100 dollars for FooBarSoft version 12, it means that they value it at least 100 dollars.
- dhimes 18y agoIs it moral to charge for food? Water? Heat? For tutoring or teaching? If I've learned something in my years and I want to make the world better by passing it on, through software or any other means, I'm morally obligated to find a way to sustain it. I personally also feel morally obligated to educate my children so that they can do the same. The best model man has yet developed for allowing people's talents to be used to their fullest is business. I disagree with your implication that I am somehow immoral for selling software. In fact, I am a little annoyed. (Edit: but I did upmod because it's an interesting POV that deserves to be heard.)
- ibsulon 18y agoStallman sold copies of Emacs for a pretty penny above reproduction costs. It just so happens that he give the source alongside. Freedom 0-4 does not say you cannot sell your product.