[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary sof
From: |
Barry Fitzgerald |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software) |
Date: |
Sun, 09 Jun 2002 13:51:38 -0400 |
S11001001 wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Yes, thank you.
>
> 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.
>
If the person who built my house started telling me what I could do with
it - I'd be pretty pissed off. Why aren't people pissed off like this
when it comes to software?
> >
> > But, in the Open Source, who pays the bill??
>
> Anyone who has an interest in the continued production of Free Software.
>
Yep - in fact, almost nobody actually pays for baseline
non-differentiated architectural work. Almost all libraries,
frameworks, and base level systems are available at low cost to the
masses. For instance: the .Net framework for MS windows is freely
downloadable. Now, who exactly pays Microsoft's bills?
(And, from a certain analysis, MS isn't even profitable. So, all is not
equal and proprietary software is not inherently profitable)
-Barry
- Re: `freeing' proprietary software (was Re: [DotGNU]Open ContentNetwork: Free Software P2P), Barry Fitzgerald, 2002/06/02
- Re: `freeing' proprietary software (was Re: [DotGNU]Open ContentNetwork: Free Software P2P), Angel \"Java\" Lopez, 2002/06/02
- Re: `freeing' proprietary software (was Re: [DotGNU]Open ContentNetwork: Free Software P2P), Barry Fitzgerald, 2002/06/02
- Re: `freeing' proprietary software (was Re: [DotGNU]Open ContentNetwork: Free Software P2P), Angel \"Java\" Lopez, 2002/06/02
- [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software), S11001001, 2002/06/02
- Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software), Norbert Bollow, 2002/06/05
- Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software),
Barry Fitzgerald <=
- Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software), Angel \"Java\" Lopez, 2002/06/09
- Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software), Barry Fitzgerald, 2002/06/09
- Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software), Angel \"Java\" Lopez, 2002/06/09
- Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software), Barry Fitzgerald, 2002/06/09
- [DotGNU]software should not have owners (was Re: paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software)), S11001001, 2002/06/11
- free "software" & geeky nitpicking (was Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software)), S11001001, 2002/06/11
- Re: free "software" & geeky nitpicking (was Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software)), David Bradley, 2002/06/11
- Re: free "software" & geeky nitpicking (was Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software)), James Michael DuPont, 2002/06/11
- Re: free "software" & geeky nitpicking (was Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software)), David Bradley, 2002/06/11
- Re: free "software" & geeky nitpicking (was Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software)), James Michael DuPont, 2002/06/11