tuxfan
Technomancer
NOTE:
Please do not treat this thread as Windows vs. Linux OR Gates vs. Stallman thread. This thread is about SOFTWARE IDEOLOGIES and not about SOFTWARES. I want opinions on this to find out whether I am right or wrong in what I think.
I have just finished a book titled Free Software, A Perspective (given to me by GNUrag, thank you containing writings of Richard Stallman. I must say I am impressed by the man, but must also add that I am not entirely convinced about the concept of free (as in freedom) software.
It is an ideallistic approach. Very noble. Good for the society and the users, but doesn't seem good for the programmer. I have been a programmer as well as a user. So can think from both the perspectives. From a user's perspective, I will say I love GNU/Linux because I don't have to spend for it and still get something thats fantastic and better than the alternatives. I can get it from someone who is willing to give it to me. Thanks to Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman.
But from the programmer's perspective it sounds financially unviable. By programmer, I mean a person who does coding for earning his livelihood and does not code only because of his love for development. Fulfilling my passion for development doesn't give me my food, clothing and other necessities. I don't mind contributing to free software in my part time. But can't take it up as full time.
The financial status of Bill Gates and Richard Stallman will amply demonstrate what I am trying to say. Both are geniuses in their own way. But look at the vast difference in their monetary strengths. Most people (that includes me) are selfish. I can't think about the benefit to the society at my cost. I am not as noble as Stallman/Linus. I will first think about how I will feed myself and my family. I will think what will give me maximum monetary gain out of my efforts. I would not like to give away my code and allow people to freely copy and then wait for someone to sponsor me because they like what I do. I don't want to wait for gratuitious donations!!
Here are a few things I feel like quoting from the book. There may be many more things worth quoting, but can't quote too much.
Let's put all other arguments aside. Just concentrate on the economic fallout from a programmer's point of view. Does he earn his livelihood or enough returns on his efforts if he decides give a free (as in freedom) software? Free software theory sounds more like communist ideas - everything for the society and nothing (or hardly anything) for your own benefit. Proprietory software sounds more like capitalism. Communism sounds great, but at how many places in the world has it survived?
Those who want to earn prefer capitalism, those who have to spend prefer communalism. As a software user, I would love to use free software because I can even get it without spending. But as a full time commercial programmer, I wouldn't like to give away my source code for free. Opening out source for mass reviewing (and holding back copyright) still seems somewhat acceptable, but always releasing it under GNU GPL seems unviable.
I can't remain dependant on donations in spite of putting in so much efforts. I can give a part of my time towards free software, but not entire time. I will have to resort to proprietory software for survival. Even still as of now there are companies like SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. who are financially doing good on free software, but is everything they dish out truly free?
PS : My gut feeling says Linus wouldn't have released the kernel under GNU GPL if he would have felt that he is sitting on something big. He needed people to try it out, he needed contributions and thats why had to open it up. He wasn't that confident. As regards Stallman, he would have released everything irrespective of its financial gain. He seems too selfless.
Please do not treat this thread as Windows vs. Linux OR Gates vs. Stallman thread. This thread is about SOFTWARE IDEOLOGIES and not about SOFTWARES. I want opinions on this to find out whether I am right or wrong in what I think.
I have just finished a book titled Free Software, A Perspective (given to me by GNUrag, thank you containing writings of Richard Stallman. I must say I am impressed by the man, but must also add that I am not entirely convinced about the concept of free (as in freedom) software.
It is an ideallistic approach. Very noble. Good for the society and the users, but doesn't seem good for the programmer. I have been a programmer as well as a user. So can think from both the perspectives. From a user's perspective, I will say I love GNU/Linux because I don't have to spend for it and still get something thats fantastic and better than the alternatives. I can get it from someone who is willing to give it to me. Thanks to Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman.
But from the programmer's perspective it sounds financially unviable. By programmer, I mean a person who does coding for earning his livelihood and does not code only because of his love for development. Fulfilling my passion for development doesn't give me my food, clothing and other necessities. I don't mind contributing to free software in my part time. But can't take it up as full time.
The financial status of Bill Gates and Richard Stallman will amply demonstrate what I am trying to say. Both are geniuses in their own way. But look at the vast difference in their monetary strengths. Most people (that includes me) are selfish. I can't think about the benefit to the society at my cost. I am not as noble as Stallman/Linus. I will first think about how I will feed myself and my family. I will think what will give me maximum monetary gain out of my efforts. I would not like to give away my code and allow people to freely copy and then wait for someone to sponsor me because they like what I do. I don't want to wait for gratuitious donations!!
Here are a few things I feel like quoting from the book. There may be many more things worth quoting, but can't quote too much.
-
Richard Stallman on Pg 58 said:What does society need? .... programs that people can read, fix, adapt and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change .... Soceity also needs freedom.
-
Richard Stallman on Pg 58 said:The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds.
-
Richard Stallman on Pgs 58 said:The Free Software Foundaton (FSF), a tax-exempt charity for free software development, raises funds by selling GNU CD-ROMs, T-shirts, maunals and deluxe distributions, (all of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from donations.
-
Richard Stallman on Pg 59 said:Some free software developers make money by selling support services. Cygus Support ..... estimates that about 15 % of its staff activity is free software development – a respectable percentage for a software company
-
Richard Stallman on Pgs 60 to 62 said:Science must push copyright aside
-
Richard Stallman on Pg 73 said:My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietory software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better.
Let's put all other arguments aside. Just concentrate on the economic fallout from a programmer's point of view. Does he earn his livelihood or enough returns on his efforts if he decides give a free (as in freedom) software? Free software theory sounds more like communist ideas - everything for the society and nothing (or hardly anything) for your own benefit. Proprietory software sounds more like capitalism. Communism sounds great, but at how many places in the world has it survived?
Those who want to earn prefer capitalism, those who have to spend prefer communalism. As a software user, I would love to use free software because I can even get it without spending. But as a full time commercial programmer, I wouldn't like to give away my source code for free. Opening out source for mass reviewing (and holding back copyright) still seems somewhat acceptable, but always releasing it under GNU GPL seems unviable.
I can't remain dependant on donations in spite of putting in so much efforts. I can give a part of my time towards free software, but not entire time. I will have to resort to proprietory software for survival. Even still as of now there are companies like SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. who are financially doing good on free software, but is everything they dish out truly free?
PS : My gut feeling says Linus wouldn't have released the kernel under GNU GPL if he would have felt that he is sitting on something big. He needed people to try it out, he needed contributions and thats why had to open it up. He wasn't that confident. As regards Stallman, he would have released everything irrespective of its financial gain. He seems too selfless.