[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software

From: S11001001
Subject: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software)
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:47:31 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0+) Gecko/20020525

I am sure that, when you say "Open Source", you mean Free Software.... <>

Angel "Java" Lopez wrote:
No, the natural inclination and function is to be executed (in case of bits
and bytes of a program).

I believe that fitzix misspoke; what I think he meant is, that it is a natural *property* of bits and bytes to be copied with incredible ease. Any restriction of such is "artificial scarcity", i.e., bad for everyone else.

One can argued that the original intention of the producer of the bits and
bytes, was not to be freely copied (or, better, be executed). This is an
important point for me: the intention of the producer, until now, this type
of intention is supported by the law.

Yes, but it (control of software usage by the author) is unethical. My intention in using software is not to give the software author control over my life.

One can argued that sharing bits and bytes, are ethical but not legal....
well, change the law, first. The other way: change the distribution system,
like the Open Source is doing. In the music world, one band can embrace the
free copy and distribution (again, the producer , the band, decide to do in
this way) of their material, and gain fans and momentum or fame. One form of
income can be theater presentations...

But, in the Open Source, who pays the bill??

Anyone who has an interest in the continued production of Free Software.

One argument [that the proprietary advocates use] takes a legitimate approach to defending non-free software: that the system truly does encourage innovation. Ignore for a moment that non-free software makes new ideas [built on top of the non-free] illegal, therefore stifling innovation. Accept their argument that without economic incentive, there would be no software. By the logic of the free market, this means that there is no demand for software in the first place, and therefore, their business should not be making any money at all. It is amazing that these businesses do not have faith in the free market that they claim to praise and uphold.

However, the demand is still there. Because there is demand, the creators of software will get paid, one way or another. This payment is much fairer under a system of free software. If you do not believe that people will pay for free software, consider the existence of donations. Would you insist that not-for-profit organizations that rely on donations do not get any? They do, because people recognize the need for their funding. By the same token, they will recognize the need for funding of software creators, and hopefully, they will one day see that in free software, they are getting `more for their money'.

For another example of this sentiment, see <>

Stephen Compall
DotGNU `Contributor' --

If you have a distant goal, there are two ways to reach it. One of
them is to have alot of money. And the other is idealism.
        -- RMS

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]