* 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

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

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

> 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”?


Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:

In support of Richard M. Stallman

Reply via email to