Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
My washing machine and car examples were about whether or not it is apathetic to not care about how something works. I was trying to demonstrate that when I say most users don't care about these factors in software, I am not trying to be derogatory of them. (You appeared to mistake some of my earlier comments in this regard.)
There are lots of different freedoms involved in software (and I am still talking about software - no politics, and no religion - I promise. ... At least, no more than perhaps the sort of religious fervour that sometimes comes into such discussions  ).
The sort of free software you have been alluding to generally follows the so called " copyleft" principle (any changes you make to it must be made available under the same conditions). While I think this principle was probably necessary for open source grow to a force in its own right, the very lack of freedom that this principle imposed constrained the growth of open source for some time.
Whether people like it or not, the software industry is heavily dependent on corporate support, and copyleft doesn't fit easily into most corporate requirements. Eventually someone came up with the bright idea of dual licensing, and this opened up the way for the source code of many more projects to see the light of day. That is: Freedom is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
What rules you use to choose the software you want to use is, of course, entirely up to you. But if you are not a software developer then my opinion is there is not much advantage in choosing strictly free-as-in-speech software. Most free-as-in-beer software has as much freedom as most users need or want. Indeed, a lot of free-as-in-beer software these days will have been developed using - at least partly - the same source as a lot of free-as-in-speech software, but under alternate licensing. The same precautions in software selection are required by users in any case.
None of which is trying to argue that free-as-in-speech software is a bad thing. I think its rise has been very good thing for the industry, and this is a very good thing for all users: so much more to choose from, and much of it very much higher quality than it would have been otherwise. I just think it's a mistake to see it as the only way to get good software. |
I don't see it as the only way to get good software. I prefer free software over freeware, for the reasons I've stated more than once.
I take your word for it that you weren't implying that some users (most users in your comments) are apathetic about software freedom, or choose free software for venal reasons.
The software freedom I'm talking about is the user's freedom, not the specific GPL requirement that derivatives have to be licensed in the same way. (although that requirement is intended to ensure the same freedom to subsequent users.)
I agree that the watered down requirements of Open Source made it easier for timid business people to get involved. Many of the variations on licensing allow them to take someone else's work for free and turn it into something proprietary. Minimum investment for maximum gain is enough incentive for some of them to overcome their timidity about it.
I agree that freedom can be in the eye of the beholder and, as you've shown, some find it in the freedom to make money from other people's work. And I do understand their reluctance to reciprocate by contributing freely. I can imagine their revulsion at the prospect, since it violates what they believe in. The soft freedom of open source attracted pecuniary interest and raised the profile of quasi-free software. The ultimate effect on software freedom is still unknown.
My "rules" for choosing software are a combination of pragmatism and principle. Pragmatically, freeware can be dangerous. I shouldn't have to elaborate on that. I hear it's a source of malware and nagware and unwanted "accessories." It's likely that you know more about it than I do, though. More importantly, I believe in living by my principles as much as possible, and I like the principles of free software. It's the same principle that has me releasing my novels under Creative Commons licenses. I would love the poetic symmetry of the authors of the free software that I use finding and reading the CC books that I write. You needn't continue telling me that most people don't care about these principles. I do, and whether some freeware is "just as good" simply isn't the point for me.
I don't know if you mistook something I said, or if you're addressing a general audience rather than just me, but it would be a mistake to assume that I think that free software is the only way to get good software. I just prefer free software over freeware, and I have not found any instance where I have had to resort to proprietary software instead of free software.