Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 10, 2004 04:04 PM
I would rather say free software comes from the most radical neoliberal philosophy. First of all, it was spontaneus. No goverment ever decided it should exist. If Mr. Stallman started the FSF he did it as an individual, with no more power than anyone else. The thinking behind the FSF is against software pattents and copyrights, which are actually State-mandated monopolies (artificial monopolies), which are today's remanents of merchantilism. In no part does the GPL says you have to do something for free. In fact, it says you may charge a fee for distribution, a fee for giving the source code (limited to distribution costs) or you may charge for giving support or a warranty. In other words, what the GPL is actually doing is promoting loyal competition, where everyone has access to the source code of whatever program they are supporting. Why are there people programming for "free"? The are actually not programming for free, they are getting from the community something they value more than what they are giving in. (theory of the subjective value of goods) They give time and knowledge after fulfilling their basic needs (usually as programmers for propietary software, or as tech support, or something similar), and they get - personal satisfaction (same reason people give money to charities) - right to use source code they do not have necessary skills-resources to produce Reason # 2 is incresingly more important. It might be too expensive to produce some technology, that someone else already produced, so by using the GPL they can produce and sell derivative work. Obviously, in exchange that derivative work is also GPLd. Still, they can sell it, and make a profit from it, specially, giving warranties, support, etc. So the GPL promotes work division... Also, the GPL is about freedom. No one is forced into it. You may use a GPL program, modify it, and use the modified version without releasing it. You are only bounded to the GPL when distributing. Certainly, if you create derivative work you then want to make proprietary, then you are in trouble. It is not the GPL stealing your IP, it is you, that based your creation on code which was provided by a copyleft license. In the same way, if you did derivative work based on someone else's proprietary software you have to pay him/her a license fee. The owner can impose any restriction he wants. He can charge you a per copy royaly, or decide he will not license his creation to you. Owners who decide to put their work under the GPL ask you for the right to re-distribute your work based on theirs... it is up to you to decide if you accept this or not. (as you decide if you pay or not a royalty). As for the comment of the majority of users wanting free software, because it is free as in free beer I would think there is a misunderstanding. Most of the Total Cost of Ownership is not the license, but the support that comes aftewards. This is not gratis with free software. Certainly, a skilled user migth use free software for free and be his own support staff. He would be saving money in the same way an electrician saves money by doing his own electrical repair. Corporate users would have to hire tech support staff, or sign contracts with experts to maintain their free software systems, in the same way the do with their propietary ones. A higher level of tech support at a lower cost is possible with free software, as there is no need to pay a large softwar firm for a software enhacement, but this is a result only of fair competition, where no monopolies are allowed.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Different people, different goals.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 10, 2004 04:04 PMFirst of all, it was spontaneus. No goverment ever decided it should exist. If Mr. Stallman started the FSF he did it as an individual, with no more power than anyone else. The thinking behind the FSF is against software pattents and copyrights, which are actually State-mandated monopolies (artificial monopolies), which are today's remanents of merchantilism.
In no part does the GPL says you have to do something for free. In fact, it says you may charge a fee for distribution, a fee for giving the source code (limited to distribution costs) or you may charge for giving support or a warranty. In other words, what the GPL is actually doing is promoting loyal competition, where everyone has access to the source code of whatever program they are supporting.
Why are there people programming for "free"?
The are actually not programming for free, they are getting from the community something they value more than what they are giving in. (theory of the subjective value of goods)
They give time and knowledge after fulfilling their basic needs (usually as programmers for propietary software, or as tech support, or something similar), and they get
- personal satisfaction (same reason people give money to charities)
- right to use source code they do not have necessary skills-resources to produce
Reason # 2 is incresingly more important. It might be too expensive to produce some technology, that someone else already produced, so by using the GPL they can produce and sell derivative work. Obviously, in exchange that derivative work is also GPLd. Still, they can sell it, and make a profit from it, specially, giving warranties, support, etc. So the GPL promotes work division...
Also, the GPL is about freedom. No one is forced into it. You may use a GPL program, modify it, and use the modified version without releasing it. You are only bounded to the GPL when distributing. Certainly, if you create derivative work you then want to make proprietary, then you are in trouble. It is not the GPL stealing your IP, it is you, that based your creation on code which was provided by a copyleft license. In the same way, if you did derivative work based on someone else's proprietary software you have to pay him/her a license fee. The owner can impose any restriction he wants. He can charge you a per copy royaly, or decide he will not license his creation to you. Owners who decide to put their work under the GPL ask you for the right to re-distribute your work based on theirs... it is up to you to decide if you accept this or not. (as you decide if you pay or not a royalty).
As for the comment of the majority of users wanting free software, because it is free as in free beer I would think there is a misunderstanding. Most of the Total Cost of Ownership is not the license, but the support that comes aftewards. This is not gratis with free software. Certainly, a skilled user migth use free software for free and be his own support staff. He would be saving money in the same way an electrician saves money by doing his own electrical repair. Corporate users would have to hire tech support staff, or sign contracts with experts to maintain their free software systems, in the same way the do with their propietary ones. A higher level of tech support at a lower cost is possible with free software, as there is no need to pay a large softwar firm for a software enhacement, but this is a result only of fair competition, where no monopolies are allowed.
#