About Free Software

If you have any questions on programming, this is the place to ask them, whether you're a newbie or an experienced programmer. Discussion on programming in general is also welcome. We will help you with programming homework, but we will not do your work for you! Any porting requests must be made in Developmental Ideas.
Post Reply
User avatar
RyoDC
Mental DCEmu
Mental DCEmu
Posts: 366
https://www.artistsworkshop.eu/meble-kuchenne-na-wymiar-warszawa-gdzie-zamowic/
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:13 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 0

About Free Software

Post by RyoDC »

Just on days, I had watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNBMdDaYhZA
I liked better part of concepts, voiced by the Richard Stallman, well, despite that, I got many counterbalance arguments to a concept of a desired world of Mr. Stallman, that I would like to share with.
To better explain my thoughts, I would take a most widely-known commercial software packet, Adobe Photoshop, in a recourse.
1. Source code must be opened to all.

Then why the heck someone would be in need to pay a 699$ for a program, if he can just download that sources, modify them in his own style, compile, and use for his professional activity?

2. Source code can be freely used in purposes of changing without noticing a production company and it's successors.

Referring to this rule, it's obtained, that on the base of source code of Photoshop, we can create our own products, and use it for our own profit and even sell it without even noticing a developer of original product? Which way this will become in increasing sales of the original product?
Another potential treat is that users can create even better program, based on the sources (or ideas) of the Photoshop, so in that case company would lost income too. I think that breaks the concept of intellectual property at all.

3. Distribute exact copies without paying any fee

Distributing copies would not be a crime anymore.
So again, why the heck do I need to pay for program if I can easily borrow it from my friend and use as much time as I want to?

4. Malicious features.

I agree, that's a problem. I don't know what photoshop do with my computer in a background. So it's a danger.
But if all the developers of a commercial, heavy-weight software, would share the source codes of their programs to people, give them such a freedom of what to do with that code, does it not intends to drastically decrease the incoming fee for their work? Cause the programmers, who write a code in such companies, they're people too, and they do certainly want to receive a compensation for their hard labour, isn't it?
How it would interfere with what Mr. Stallman currently offers?
How do I try to build a Dreamcast toolchain:
Image
Ex-Cyber
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life
Posts: 3641
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 1:55 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: About Free Software

Post by Ex-Cyber »

The key thing here is that there is almost no real cost embodied in an additional copy of a program. The real cost is in the work done to produce and support the program. In the retail proprietary software world, this cost is mostly sunk up front by the developer/publisher and when you buy a copy of the program it's really more like paying back part of a loan. You're not really buying the program but rather paying for your share of the development cost. In the Free Software world things are more direct; you don't buy the program, you hire programmers (if the software or feature you want doesn't exist yet) or buy a support contract (if the software does exist but you want general support and managed updates with a guaranteed service level). This is why Red Hat has over $1 billion in revenue even though anybody can just download CentOS or Scientific Linux for free. Kickstarter is more broadly starting to show that many users are willing to directly invest money up front toward the creation of new software/music/movies/etc. instead of just buying a copy in the conventional way.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
Post Reply