Why Software should be free...

Good read!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

 

I am using Ubuntu 10.04 as I type http://distrowatch.com/ http://www.ubuntu.com/ Some very good software is free . desert rat

 

I'm using Ubuntu 10.04 atm too, except I'm using the Kubuntu-Trinity edition. My lappy is kinda old, and has issues running Gnome or KDE 4, and Lubuntu just feels kinda stripped down on this computer. So I use Trinity, which is the modern version of KDE 3.5. It's VERY fast, and it just feels more smooth than Gnome did on this compy.

My modern systems run Ubuntu, including my mom, and my aunt's laptops.

Oh and my server runs Debian.

 

It's actually a little condescending. People deserve to be compensated for their work, and have the right to be. Gems like this one...

... just take away the credibility of the whole argument. There is a lot of benefit to open software (I too am using Ubuntu 10.04 right now), but that doesn't mean it can become the standard. Everyone wants something for free, and can often come up with some pretty elaborate justifications. This sounds like some kid who's pissed off because the new Photoshop costs $1000 and he can't afford it; I'm kind of saddened to see this on the GNU website.

 

This argument is completely detatched from reality, which is not just the only way it works (as basically stated in the introduction), but the reason it is completelly useless.

Taxes pay for roads; no one's going to want a software tax, and a software tax couldn't possibly have any acountability of quality.


If he focussed more on this as an ideal, a goal to reach, and focussed on raising awareness and whatnot of free software funding, this could be a great article.

But as it is, it's a hypothetical academic argument.

 

That's exactly right. It is filled with hyperbole and bad rhetoric, but it goes more along those lines than what I was saying before.

 

Hahaha i just saw this post and i was going to head in here and suggest some nice hard core linux but i guess people beat me too it!!

Ubuntu is AWESOME! but im currently using windows 7 sorry for the let down.

 

i have to use window now because of ebay turbo lister, but use sylpheed for mail, firefox for browsing, gimp for graphics, geany for text, open office for spreadsheets and docs

if i ever get tired of making a living on ebay will go back to linux faster than a puppy cd boots . . .

 

haha highly doubt that considering it's very easy to pirate programs like these.
and would you agree that a 1000$ photoshop is too overpriced? it's a fucking program for god's sakes.


i completely agree with the article. the thought that an owner needs such recognition is an askew mentality that adheres to a system of business, a system that does not adhere to ideals and a lot of the time equality.

the author's argument on how software is dealt with can be exactly parallel to how e-books are dealt with.

E-books are being sold as the same price as you would buy a normal book from the store; 15$ more or less for new books. There is a huge difference between buying the book in hardcover or paperback rather than a pdf file that would only take about 2 MB (the size of Moby Dick) on your computer. when buying a book, you should be paying for the pages, the cover, the store or website you buy from, the publisher, and the author. with e-books, all of the physical demands are taken out because its a digital copy, in addition, you don't need a publisher since you can simply put your words on the internet as I am now. this means you should only be paying the author, so why does it still cost 15$?

same concept with software. its absurd a program would run for more than 1000$ per computer it is on. this "moral obligation" that the owner needs monetary recognition is neurotic. the reality is, software is being distributed all over the world whether the owner or the government acknowledges or not. laws and business need to acknowledge these capabilities of "digitality"

this reminds me of prohibition on drugs, it's parallel to this free software argument. obviously it's failing for marijuana, and the laws need to acknowledge them. after they do, there would still be business because there is work involved. but there is a difference between growing weed and creating software. software once it's made can be reproduced, replicated, distributed and improved infinitely from then on.

advocating funding of freeware would contradict what the author was trying to argue, so he/she probably wouldn't agree with that, as i wouldn't

 

software should be free but then again I pirate shit but thats music and not computer software where they put more time and effort.

 

the music industry does put a lot of time and effort into their work also, so software work vs. music work is arguable.
and technology is furthering easier ways to program software also. for example, Apple has an Software Development Kit program (which they sell, something i do not agree with) which you can make apps for your iphone or ipod yourself or even publish them on the app store.
there are holes in this example that would need to change by business mentality, but ya.

but this does provide a new thought that musicians do have a different outlet of making money, as software developers don't really.

 

Development kits should be made free by all hardware manufacturers. It should be a law!

The DMCA has one basic agenda, that is to help a few billionaire corporations make a few extra millions at the expense of the working class and their personal freedoms.

The current pricing, distributions and licensing within the current industry is extremely corrupt, controlling and greedy. Especially things like game consoles where the giant corporations like microsoft have total control over licensing and authorization of software titles. Development companies typically see only a small fraction of software profits.

The true potential of our modern technology is lost because greedy corporate giants have locked out open development. They have locked and crippled their hardware to protect their massive profit margins on their over priced software titles. Relinquishing control over hardware and software to the common people who've paid good money for their devices is a billionaire corporations worst nightmare.

 

I'm just not sure where people get the idea that they have a right to computer software. If I assemble a team and spend ~5 years planning, writing, testing, rewriting, packaging, and marketing a new piece of software, (and yes, this is on the larger scale here), how is it that anyone else has the right to use it? Do we not believe in intellectual property? You say it goes against "equality," but why is that necessarily the best standard? It's unequal for you to have a house and someone else not to, if you want to take that train of logic, but you probably don't feel too bad about that: you worked for it and you deserve it.

Of course the big companies take advantage of everything they can, and of course their ways of "making money" are pretty arcane. But if we consider your average software programmer, your average small developer trying to put out a real product, how does that benefit from making software free? Writing software is an extremely technical and time-consuming process, performed by people who are very well trained, and I fail to see why no one thinks they should have to pay for that service.

 

i don't think of it as a right for people to own software, i just find it not worthwhile and even destructive to charge and chase every computer that has pirated the software. it depends on what kind of intellectual property we're talking about. if saying the idea that has made a sink faucet should be owned by a person or a group, i think that needs to change. freedom of thought, and creation is definitely entitled. a difference being that if a person made a product for someone and that recipient paid money, that is balanced. in the situation that one group of people make one product that will be reproduced by automation to millions of people in which it is charged, that is unbalanced.

that house example has other factors put into it though. does work mean youre working for a paying career in which you buy the house from a bank? or building the house yourself? the action of working at a paying job in itself, paying a bank, and even the existance of a bank, all based on money fundamentals is inequal. when building something for yourself, you pay for land and supplies further acknowledging those money fundamentals of inequality. its pretty much everywhere. but it's great that the labor is by the self. when software is massively reproduced, the labor is by computers, an entity incapable of holding money.

if all software was made free, average joe has just enough opportunities to provide good ideas as Adobe has. i dont think we need to entice business and monetary recognition in this field since good ideas and software will be made regardless.

 

You're right about the cost of reproduction of the software, to an extent anyway. It certainly doesn't cost as much money as producing hardware, and it costs almost nothing if it's being distributed online. Printing boxes and packaging and buying, operating, and maintaining machines that can accurately burn large numbers of DVDs very quickly would be quite expensive though, I think.

As long as we're discussing it from an intellectual property standpoint, what are your opinions on the works of an author? Should it be public domain after a few years, once they've made whatever would be considered "fair compensation?" Probably not. I realize you're making a distinction between works of art and software, which is considered a tool; however, in the end it is the assembly (based on a certain logic) of particular parts (words or code) to produce the whole. The piece of writing provides an aesthetic/entertainment pleasure, while software is a business tool. With that in mind, I think it seems more reasonable to pay for software.

That is, of course, going by conventional standards of what should be paid for, which is precisely what the article was critiquing. You're right that trying to track down pirated versions of software, etc., is stupid and impossible on any large scale. It is a slippery slope for the companies involved though; if Microsoft stops worrying about pirated versions of Windows 7, no one will buy it anymore (what the author wants, I guess). This is obviously the reason Microsoft would choose to at least make a good pretense at trying to stop piracy.

The way the argument breaks down for me is pragmatism vs. idealism. We have a medium of intellectual property that, by rights (in my opinion), deserves compensation. On the other hand, the medium it is necessarily a part of (computers and the internet) makes it nearly impossible to enforce any of these rights. In that case, I am willing to stick with this ineffective system, because I'm not confident about the future of software if it operates on public funding, donations, etc.

 

Well, for basic home users, free software should be enough. But from a business standpoint, it might not be the best way to go. It depends on the type of business and the type of application being considered. There is room enough for both types of software, though, I think.

 

FREE software is usually better i have noticed...

I have several EXCELLENT FREE programs and they couldnt be better!!

Regseeker
Disk Cleaner
RESTORATION (Restore deleted files/completly wipe them from sectors)

Just to name 3 .. (My favourites)