> Essentially, if all software was free, how would anyone be able to > profit from selling software? Would anyone be able to profit from > selling software?
It's not important and not needed. There are businesses getting money for support or customization of software. I hope profit won't be the most important issue in a world without nonfree software. > Think about this scenario in the world for which the FSF strives: you > find that somebody's created a really nice program, but the developer > is charging a large sum for it. You simply search for one of the > millions of mirrors that have sprung up to redistribute software, and > download the program from there. There would be absolutely no market > for software, because it would all be...free. People solve the problem of access to the program being restricted. It's good. > Then there's the risk > that the mirrors might contain malware (something that proprietary > software prevents by not allowing modification). There is no malware for nonfree software? Does crime exist (it's certainly illegal so this logic should prevent it from being)? Supporting sharing of software, having public DVCSes and releases signed by trusted developers helps avoid malware. > And what about the > miniature operating systems in appliances and such? Would those be > free software, too? Yes. Why not? > I support the ideas of free software - enough to install Trisquel - > but I'm not sure it's totally sustainable in the long run. Is capitalism "totally sustainable in the long run"? Doesn't it need infinite growth and unlimited resources of e.g. oil? Is there a sustainable alternative with nonfree software? If not, why would it it be a free software-specific problem?
pgpLg8OS1p2hg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
