Re: [Trisquel-users] Re : What if we win?

[kendell clark]

This sounds like just about every piece of pay for software in the 
windows world. They reel you in with a free version that does nice 
things, then they develop a so called professional edition which does 
things like automatic updates, and better features. They attach a price 
tag to it and go, oh but there's a free version out there. It doesn't do 
automatic updates but who needs that? Spot on, magic banana. On 
02/13/2013 04:37 AM, magicban...@gmail.com wrote:
The free software movement is about freeing *all* computer users 
(including companies) through freeing *all* software. A free software 
core is a positive contribution to the movement. Developing 
proprietary software is a negative contribution to the movement. It 
subjugates the users that do no value their freedoms. This software 
may include a free core, be a plugin to a free core, be the 
"enterprise version" of a free "community edition" or tailor a few 
customers. Those names do change anything to its unethical nature.

Now that it is clear to anybody that, in your text, "support" includes 
"additional developments" and "non copyleft" means "proprietary", let 
me cite your first post in this thread:

You can make money by developing a free software package but leave it 
pretty bare bones (...). Non technical users are stuck. When that user 
needs help installing or using it, you offer support under an 
"enterprise" edition where you dual license the software under the GPL 
and a custom license so code is no longer copyleft.

Although that I agree (and have always agreed) that the free software 
core is a positive contribution, this business plan looks disgusting 
to me. It is about attracting users with free software to then taking 
advantage of the non-technical ones who are purposely "stuck" and 
invited to proprietary software to merely be able to use the software.

What is even more disgusting is that you then pretend that the 
proprietary software developer is not guilty; that the user (the 
victim) is to be blamed because she should have refused the invitation 
and stick to the free core (that she cannot use). Going that far 
justifies about any proprietary software development: "Buy our nice 
user-subjugating software! It is ethical because there exists this 
feature-lacking and unusable application as a free software alternative."