* Akira Urushibata <a...@wta.att.ne.jp> [2022-02-18 01:16]: > Here is my reply to some points raised in the course of discussion. > > On why gratitude is necessary, it is important to make a distinction > between the subjective from the objective. We should not assume that > it is just one of these and fail to see the other.
It's always good to read your opinions. > Subjective: > > "I wrote this software. It was hard work. I do not object to people > using it without paying me money, but I want to be recognized for my > contribution. As such I demand expression of gratitude from each and > every user." "It was hard work" -- It could be said to be hard work. I just don't relate to it. Authors normally do it out of pleasure and personal needs. They are not forced normally to make it. To be recognized is easy, if people like it, people speak about it. "To demand expression of gratitude" is somehow weird. It is either free or not free and demanding. If author wishes to get expression of gratitude, then a button on the website could tell "THANKS, I LIKE IT" and other button could say "NOT QUITE WHAT I WANT". There are also button to "Pay me a beer" and "Donate some money". I can understand that some people may feel so. I don't agree to lack of professionalism in the above statement, though I think it is hypothetical statement. Professionals are simply selling their software. I have visited various websites in last days where free software is offered and sold, it is sold either as software or as provision of service that software serves. Example of free software: Monica - Personal Relationship Manager https://github.com/monicahq/monica Example how they earn money: https://www.monicahq.com/pricing > Objective: > > "Someone who gets something for free fails to say thanks is bound to > fall into the fallacy that the object is not valuable. This > distortion of value leads to misunderstanding of technology. Poor > understanding in turn leads to abuse. Modern computers and > communication devices are powerful; they can incur significant > damage when abused or misused to users and by-standers alike. It is > natural that those who understand technology to consider it their > rightful duty to prevent such damage." The word "free" in free software does not relate to price. I have seen websites where software is free as in freedom, but has to be purchased. There is nothing wrong with it. Teach those people to make it professional. One example is that there is F-Droid.org repository of free software applications for Android, LineageOS and Replicant mobile systems; then there is Google Play where some applications otherwise downloadable free of charge on F-Droid have to be paid on Google Play. Here is one such example where application is sold for US $3.97 while otherwise it can be downloaded free of charge on F-Droid.org or elsewhere: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.siacs.conversations And I am sure that application is sold many times on Google Play thus giving income to author. Let me stress that writing software alone is not enough to make money. Salesmanship, online marketing, and plethora of other skills are necessary to sell anything, not just software. Programmers are not necessarily professional in sales. They do need help to sell services easier. > Expression of gratitude, acknowledgment of someone's contribution > to society come together. Please consider the following, a line of > discussion all of us must have heard, in this light: > > "The OS should be called 'Linux' not 'GNU/Linux' as Richard Stallman > suggests. It is true that Linus Torvalds used tools written by > Richard Stallman to make the Linux. But Richard Stallman wrote none > of the source code of Linux; his contribution was indirect and by no > means sufficient to support his claim that the operating system > should bear 'GNU' (which is the name of the project Stallman headed) > in its name." I don't know what the above paragraph is meant to be. Maybe it is your statement, maybe it is hypothetical statement. Linux is not "operating system", but kernel. GNU system existed before the kernel Linux, and once somebody put GNU with any kernel, it is GNU system based on Linux kernel. There is GNU based on Hurd kernel, and I remember there is GNU based on FreeBSD kernel, then there is with Illumos Kernel, Darwin kernel and Windows NT kernel, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_variants and then we have to mention Linux-libre kernel which is kernel without proprietary blobs. If you take those kernels alone, they will not provide an operating systems, this is because kernel is not operating system. Why not just say “Linux is the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under the name “GNU”? https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#linuxgnu Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/