4 ms·

I think I have a tough time as both a software developer and a consumer getting behind "the world should be built on free software." I will gladly pay for the

by ljd 14y ago

I think I have a tough time as both a software developer and a consumer getting behind "the world should be built on free software." I will gladly pay for the best fit for me, it's how resources are transacted in an economy. You pay for the things that are valuable to you, and you should pay at the rate at which they are valuable. Why should software be singled out as free? I agree that I benefit from open source and I try to contribute when I can but it still stands that I don't mind paying for a lot of software that is classified as open source. Every time I read about open source software, I always feel like I'm missing some piece of the puzzle.

takluyver 14y ago
Software is subject to very strong network effects, which can lead to monopolies. i.e. applications are made for Windows, so consumers need Windows computers, so developers need to make apps for Windows. Similarly with IE6, Microsoft Office, and increasingly so with Android. Once it's established, the platform owner can rake in money simply by charging users & developers to meet on a common ground. I don't think all software needs to be open source, but I'd like the basics - operating systems, web browsers, word processors, etc. - to be open source. It's much easier to explore different ideas if you can use existing code and keep compatibility with millions of apps/web pages/documents.
yk 14y ago
To paraphrase: It is free as in freedom not as in beer. The point is, that if you buy a car, then you are allowed to drive it anywhere and anyhow you want. ( Within legal limits, but the thought that Mercedes would preclude you from driving north of 38° N is simply ridiculous.) You may even paint it in a new color or install a new engine. By contrast if you license software it is not clear what you are allowed to do with it. Are you allowed to use it in a nuclear power plant? ( Java is excluding itself from such an environment.) Or are you allowed to modify the software, after commercial support did run out. So free software is first of all software which is licensed to you in a closer analogy to the rights you get by buying a car. With this in mind, there is a interesting side effect of free software, namely that you are allowed to sell it just as you are allowed to sell your car. But unlike cars you also have the means of production for software, which means that all it takes for free software to be free as in beer is one guy who is willing to give copies of his copy away for free. ( This is of course exactly the same as with commercial software, the difference is, that free software realizes that abundance is a feature.) So if you are willing to pay for software and you find that free software suits your needs, perhaps after trying the software, then you should consider a donation for the developers of that software or for the FSF.
- quasque 14y ago
  I don't think the car analogy works well in this case, as both the acts of manufacturing and driving the vehicle have numerous laws and regulations - making it more akin to a software license agreement than not.
  - pekk 14y ago
    Once I, as a consumer, have purchased a car, I do not care about the regulations on manufacturing. It is my car. I can repaint it. I can remove the logos. I can mess with the engine. Yes, there are emissions regs in many states. But these are not simply dictated by the vendor of the car, to make me keep buying the car, or paying extra each time I want to drive into a new state. There is at least some reasonable justification (if cell phones belched smoke, they'd be regulated the same way).
  - yk 14y ago
    Yes, but these are government laws, not a expression of the special interests of a private company.
YokoZar 14y ago
It helps if you recognize software as a public good in the economic sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good -- a healthy software ecosystem is much like having good street lights and roads. Expansive use of nonfree software is like having tollbooths and occasional dark alleys: it works just fine for some, but there's some loss to society when the economics prevent it from being inclusive.

by ljd 14y ago

takluyver 14y ago

Software is subject to very strong network effects, which can lead to monopolies. i.e. applications are made for Windows, so consumers need Windows computers, so developers need to make apps for Windows. Similarly with IE6, Microsoft Office, and increasingly so with Android. Once it's established, the platform owner can rake in money simply by charging users & developers to meet on a common ground. I don't think all software needs to be open source, but I'd like the basics - operating systems, web browsers, word processors, etc. - to be open source. It's much easier to explore different ideas if you can use existing code and keep compatibility with millions of apps/web pages/documents.

yk 14y ago

To paraphrase: It is free as in freedom not as in beer. The point is, that if you buy a car, then you are allowed to drive it anywhere and anyhow you want. ( Within legal limits, but the thought that Mercedes would preclude you from driving north of 38° N is simply ridiculous.) You may even paint it in a new color or install a new engine. By contrast if you license software it is not clear what you are allowed to do with it. Are you allowed to use it in a nuclear power plant? ( Java is excluding itself from such an environment.) Or are you allowed to modify the software, after commercial support did run out. So free software is first of all software which is licensed to you in a closer analogy to the rights you get by buying a car. With this in mind, there is a interesting side effect of free software, namely that you are allowed to sell it just as you are allowed to sell your car. But unlike cars you also have the means of production for software, which means that all it takes for free software to be free as in beer is one guy who is willing to give copies of his copy away for free. ( This is of course exactly the same as with commercial software, the difference is, that free software realizes that abundance is a feature.) So if you are willing to pay for software and you find that free software suits your needs, perhaps after trying the software, then you should consider a donation for the developers of that software or for the FSF.

quasque 14y ago
I don't think the car analogy works well in this case, as both the acts of manufacturing and driving the vehicle have numerous laws and regulations - making it more akin to a software license agreement than not.
- pekk 14y ago
  Once I, as a consumer, have purchased a car, I do not care about the regulations on manufacturing. It is my car. I can repaint it. I can remove the logos. I can mess with the engine. Yes, there are emissions regs in many states. But these are not simply dictated by the vendor of the car, to make me keep buying the car, or paying extra each time I want to drive into a new state. There is at least some reasonable justification (if cell phones belched smoke, they'd be regulated the same way).
- yk 14y ago
  Yes, but these are government laws, not a expression of the special interests of a private company.

YokoZar 14y ago

It helps if you recognize software as a public good in the economic sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good -- a healthy software ecosystem is much like having good street lights and roads. Expansive use of nonfree software is like having tollbooths and occasional dark alleys: it works just fine for some, but there's some loss to society when the economics prevent it from being inclusive.