Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
We both think the other the other is overcomplicating. 
I know of the "free as in beer" vs "free as in speech" distinction (for those that do not, see: this link.)
But free-as-in-speech is mostly* a software developer concern. The point I am really trying to make is that these distinctions don't actually mean anything to most end-users. Most end users want:
- software that does what they want it to do, easily and free of hassle
- works on the device they currently have
- doesn't do anything nasty to them or their device
- isn't going to cost more (as in beer) than they are willing to pay
For many users, free-as-in-beer looks attractive. Very few are going to look bother looking at the licence conditions in sufficient detail to understand that the software was developed according to free-as-in-speech principles - that aspect simply doesn't come into at all for normal end-user use of most software.
If you want confirmation of this problem, just look at Facebook and similar "free" services. The users of Facebook et al are the product that Facebook and friends sell to the real clients, those that pay money for advertising etc.. And yet we have millions upon millions of people willing to offer themselves (freely!) as product, just to access these "free" services.
However much software developers might like end-users to care about the conditions under which the software was developed, it isn't going to happen. It's hard enough trying to stop people buying products manufactured in sweatshops or using/harming endangered species; it would be a very very hard sell to start getting the general public to care about the problems of software development. ( Oh, those poor little geeks, slaving away in their basements, OD'ing on coffee and pastries.)
* Yes, there are "freedom" aspects potentially affecting end users too (eg: what devices they can run the software on). But as noted above, as long as the software runs on the device they are using now most users will be happy. So much software has such a short lifespan these days that worrying about whether it will run on what you have next year is often a waste of effort. |
Even though you showed that you have it backwards with the bolded part of your quote, I did you the honor of reading the rest of your comment.
Software freedom is primarily about the user's freedom.
You went on to demonstrate that most users are ignorant and apathetic, attributing to them shallow and venal motivations. And you make an appeal to pragmatism. This is all irrelevant to the principle of freedom.
Software freedom is primarily about the user's freedom.
I can see that you have a grasp of the "free as in beer" vs "free as in speech" distinction. It's just that you don't get that
software freedom is primarily about the user's freedom.