Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jun 2007 23:09 UTC, submitted by thebluesgnr
The FSF today released version 3 of the GNU GPL, the popular free software license. "Since we founded the free software movement, over 23 years ago, the free software community has developed thousands of useful programs that respect the user's freedom. The programs are in the GNU/Linux operating system, as well as personal computers, telephones, Internet servers, and more. Most of these programs use the GNU GPL to guarantee every user the freedom to run, study, adapt, improve, and redistribute the program," said Richard Stallman, founder and president of the FSF. This article has some interesting replies from the BSD community (right in the middle).
Thread beginning with comment 251963
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-12-07
Member since:2006-11-26
there is no reason why you can't put a price tag on the software itself; you can sell free software, just don't deprive your users the right to share, modify, and publish modifications of your software.
**Everyone is allowed to sell free software**. However, it is not good to deprive users any one of these rights :
0. The right to use the program
1. The right to learn from and improve the program
2. The right to share/sell copies of the program with other people
3. The right to publish improvements made to the program
Access to the source code is a requirement for freedoms 1 and 3. Any software that deprives the user any one of these rights are non-free for that user.
There are essentially two reasons why software should be free for the user:
1) The user cannot have full control of the own computers if they do not have access to what the software is telling the computer to do. A computer program is a set of instructions designed to perform a task or solve a problem. If the program is not performing to the user's requirements, the user should have the right to demand the program to be improved so it does. Being dependant upon the author of the software is not good for the user as the author can be unwilling or unable (dead, missing, in prison) then the user is SOL. With free software, there are literally millions of computer program authors that can help improve the program for a fee.
2) Society is hindered if users are deprived of the right to share and improve upon the knowledge contained within the software. Remember, ideas, information and knowledge are always built upon the information that existed before. Remember that computer programs are designed to solve a problem. It is useless/less useful to the user if the program does not solve the user's requirements. If you give people the right to share and improve upon the knowledge within software, the software becomes a lot more useful to all users of the software and society is progressed because of better working software.
RMS explains all this in more detail in one of his essays. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
ps. please don't tell me that users won't understand computer code. This is irrelevant. Users should not be *artificially* dependant upon the author of that program. Artificial dependancy occurs when the user is required to get the author's permission for improvements.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-11-26
tl;dr - Don't depend on selling software. Software is easily duplicated. Sell services because high level services are not easily duplicated.
People have the inherent ability to create and share information. People don't create information in a vaccuum, they build upon the ideas they obtain from other people. Progress occurs when people create and share information and then act upon the information. In the context of an information society that has the ability to easily replicate data and information, information becomes essentially limitless. This doesn't mean that information within an information society becomes worthless, it just means that applying restrictions to the flow information within an information society is less than optimal to the progress of that society.
Software is a collection of instructions that are designed to accomplish a task or solve a problem. People use their knowledge to solve a problem. **Software is information**. The proprietary software model works because of one concept: Artificial Scarcity. It works because there are institutions in place that restrict the flow of information within that society. Without these institutions, artificial scarcity would not exist as they do today and the model of selling proprietary software falls apart.
Knowledge and effort is required to come up with a solution that correctly solves a problem. It is a skill to practise the art of manipulating logic and assigning instructions to solve problems. The skill required to design and write software is not easily replicated. IMO, the art of programming cannot be taught, only nurtured. Techniques can be taught to help solve problems but the techniques are useless if the people learning these techniques do not understand how to apply them to form a solution.
So how does all this apply to free software and business? Don't be dependant on selling software (information) because this is easily replicated. Sell the service of modifying, improving and supporting other people with their software related problems. These services are NOT easily replicated; these services are a truly scarce resource because there are a limited number of people with these skills. Having said that, there is no reason why you can't put a price tag on the software itself; you can sell free software, just don't deprive your users the right to share, modify, and publish modifications of your software.
Edited 2007-06-30 15:46