I followed much of this discussion, which I find interesting.
To me, the gap between free software and proprietary software is indeed
related to the way humanity acts.
Originally, I think copyright and intellectual property fit their job :
protect authors from being spoiled. Today, in many cases, it has been turned
in a tool for getting more and more profit in the industry. So, the tool
doesn't fit its original purpose anymore, I think it's getting obsolete (I
know free software is legally based on copyright, but maybe someday only
credits would be sufficient -- let's dream for it ;).
Meanwhile, we have to work with it.
Free software is a response for that in the software world.
As far as I am concerned, I would be happy if everything could be free (as in
"freedom"), but after many discussions and self-thoughts, it appears to me
that I can't force freedom otherwise it's not freedom anymore. If I am right,
RMS only insists for "home-software" for domestic computers and devices
(nowadays smartphones, ...) to be free (developping being a home-activity of
course ;)
My conclusion is that :
- Proprietary software exists, it's a fact !
- I would love software creation to be in the spirit of free software in any
place wherever possible, but I am patient for that.
- There are solutions that are in-between, mainly free with non-free (eg:
Ubuntu). I think they role is valuable because they help spread free software
in places where it might not have spread otherwise.
- There are 100% free software initiatives such as Trisquel. They are
important because they guarantee that a fully free core will always exist.
I don't speak of "open-source only" and all other share-related forms,
otherwise we'll get lost...
So, I think every piece of the puzzle as its role. To me, the important
question concerns each of us only and is "where do I want to go ?".
Then, "how can I go further from where I am ?".
For example, I am a long-time FS user but only recent donator (not **yet**
for Trisquel, sorry).
It's my current IT job (non-FS) that allows me to be a donator.
Also, I realized, I can't donate for every piece of FS I use...
And my contribution is already higher than the one I have for ecology for a
long time, so sometimes it sounds strange to me... IT is not everything in
life, even tough I like it ;-)
Well, that's just for being able to look at the whole thing.
A consequence of free software, beyond the ability to access and modify the
code, is that it is calling into question the economic model.
Maybe it's not free software that does not suit the economic model, maybe
it's the main economic model in place that does not suit well human
development.
I explain... Major industries in the IT world (and not only) are seeking a
never-ending profit. Proprietary software has become a tool for that and it's
even more efficient since everything in our life is related to IT, even for
the food to be brought in our local shop !
I don't blame "profit", I think it's normal for anybody to earn money from
what it does. The problem rises with this "never-ending profit" race. Smaller
companies, might be seeking prosperity solely, but feel stuck within the way
the market runs, so I understand your point, "t3g".
In free software world, as you said, *mainly* (didn't say "only") services
are valuated. But it might change. The wind is turning towards looking
solutions for ways to finance FS creation.
How can it be ?
Let's have an example for a (distributed ?) FS company.
A customer has a specific need.
They can hire FS developpers to make the software free at their cost.
In the end, as stated by some others earliers, there are all the benefits
from FS : many testers, bug reporters, improvements feeders and community
support brought together.
What might refrain the customer to do it, is to grant their competitors from
the newly-nice-crafted-app' and benefit from it at their expense.
But ? If 2 other customers need about the same app', what happens ?
With proprietary SW, all 3 will pay for the app:
- either ordering 3 apps with 3 different SW makers
- either paying a SW maker that sells licence for an already-made product
that fits their needs
If they gather and decide to hire FS developpers to build one free app', they
just share the price and divide it (roughly, even if not exact) by 3.
Currently, such gathering exists for ordering proprietary SW, why not for FS
?
One might argue "yes, but then, there is only 1/3rd of the people working..."
I would say "no". If the money is there and ready to be spent, then for the
same price, 3 different apps' can be made instead of 3 about-the-same apps'.
And of course, if there is no need for anything else, nothing is done, and
it's good for the sake of the earth !
Well, I realize that my post has been fairly long, thank you all if you read
it !
Have a good day,
Christophe S.
