Freedom Isn't Free

Freedom isn't free, therefore, free (as in freedom) software isn't free.

rms, you should stop trying to justify the lack of freedom in your license with excuses like that.

>>2
In the free software movement, we stand for freedom for the users of software. We formulated our views by looking at what freedoms are necessary for a good way of life, and permit useful programs to foster a community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Our criteria for free software specify the freedoms that a program's users need so that they can cooperate in a community.

Free software isn't free! A programmer gave up his life to give you that free software!

rimjobs are free~

>>5
It costs you your dignity.

Just like Freedom, Free software costs a buck oh five.

Free software costs about tree fiddy.

The only free license is PUBLIC DOMAIN

>>9
Anonix developer detected.

>>10
I don't even know what that is

>>11
Good for you.

Speaking of which, is Cudder dead?

>>12
No, he/she appears to be micromanaging/marketing/spamming some visual novel translation projects on /jp/

>>3
Yeah, free software is the best.  For example, I downloaded open office for the mac platform but the UI had some issues, so I just hired a developer to clean it up and a few months (and a few thousand $) later it was fixed!  Sure beats Microsoft Office!

>>3
I forgot to mention I get my cars custom-designed too.  I'm an engineer so it doesn't cost me anything!  Just 6 months of the year!  No corporations telling ME what I need!

>>14
Free software has nothing to do with being better than proprietary software, it's all about permitting individuals to live as free and upstanding citizens. Individuals that choose to accept proprietary software are forbidden to live freely. Free software is the moral solution to this ethical problem.

>>15
Whenever you own a car, you're normally free to tinker with it and study how it works. You're normally permitted to gather with other car hackers and share knowledge about tinkering with cars. Accepting a proprietary software normally requires one to accept promises of helplessness and social division.

>>15

Auto mechanics who are forced to purchase expensive computer diagnostic tools would benefit from open sourced ECU software. Also it'd be nice to have Toyota's software independently verified, which would be trivial were it open sourced.

Additionally, you wouldn't need to get a car custom designed; you could edit the engine parameters yourself and fine tune exactly how you would like it to perform.

>>16
IT'S CLOSED SOURCE, THEREFORE, IT IS BAD.

>>19
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.

Hoarders may get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.

When we have enough free software
At our call, hackers, at our call,
We'll throw out those dirty licenses
Ever more, hackers, ever more.

Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.

>>16
I know right?  I hate it when I can't modify software other people write and redistribute it.

That's why I only read books or see movies if they are under a Creative-Commons license.  It's much better to miss a few books and movies than to give up my freedom!  If only authors weren't taking away my freedom by writing books that I can't do whatever I want with!

>>17
You know what would be even better - if you could share your car modifications with other people!  By setting up your own factory making slightly improved Toyotas!  They just have to change their business model to car-services so they could still pay their engineers!

>>21
Exactly, bro! Now your thinking in portals!

>>21 doesn't understand the difference between physical goods and intellectual property.

>>21 thinks the problems distributors of intangible goods (media companies, software companies) are facing would apply to manufacturers of tangible goods (automobile manufacturers).

>>21 is a moron.

>>23
It was in response to #17 who was saying that cars are free because you can tinker with them.  I was pointing out (sarcastically) that intellectual property still applies to cars, and if you took that away you couldn't have the industry as it is today.

That being said, I am a moron for using a car analogy.

>>23
Engineering, writing, making movies, etc takes a lot of man-hours and skill.  It is no more realistic to expect all engineers to be volunteers than to expect lawyers to be volunteers.  And if they don't volunteer, who pays them?

>>25

I wasn't advocating the abolishment of intellectual property. I was specifically rebutting >>21's hypothetical, which >>21 then recanted due to the indefensible nature of the bad analogy.

However, for the moment let's assume I do advocate the abolishment of IP as you imply. There are several examples of IP production without IP ownership that flourish and for which people earn a respectable living.

Engineers (civil at least) are an example of "creativity as a a service" using entirely public domain tools. In engineering there are innumerable IP's that are public domain without which the trade couldn't exist; For example all the basic building blocks for a structure, arches columns girders, cement, bricks  are IP that is free for anyone to use and without them structural engineering couldn't exist. At one time these didn't exist (examples in isolated precolonial South America) and as such our current civil engineers are standing on the backs of giants. If every building block of structural IP were locked behind a patent nothing could be built. Furthermore the product produced by a civil engineer belongs to the recipient who is free to distribute, make copies, modify and (so far as I know) resell to anyone they wish.

This is furthermore in the public's best interest, or would you rather civil engineers copywrite their ramps, buildings and retaining walls so that anyone who ever wants to build something similar will forever after(oops for 120 years after, my bad) need to beg permission and pay a royalty? Sorry guys our city can't build any off-ramps because the firm that built the first off-ramp back in the 30's doesn't like our cities gun laws. But it's their right I mean after all they invented the thing, right?

Right?

I was going to go on with other examples of compensation for public domain IP but you get the idea, open source software, fan-fic, unofficial anime translations, viral videos and so forth.

If you ask me the concept of property its self is unnatural and silly.

>>17
I never feared proprietary software. With good enough reverse engineering skills, one can extend or change its behaviour as one wishes, but substantial functionality changes will usually be time-consuming. Wether such changes respect the author's wishes or EULA is another thing.

>>27
John Locke would like a word with you.

>>26
It's true that a lot of jobs aren't influenced as much by IP laws (civil engineers, symphonic musicians, portrait painters, etc), but aren't they somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of IP laws?  In most cases their business model could not carried over to IP-heavy industries where the development cost to labor & materials cost ratio is different.

For example, for movies the money that is used to pay for actors, equipment, sets, special effects, etc comes from ticket and DVD sales.  Obviously theaters will buy knock-off reels without copyright laws, so what is the alternative?  Or is not being able to see the movie at all "more free" than being able to see it but not copy it?

Take 3D software; where would the money come from to develop a product like Maya?  Sure there's Blender; that was developed as proprietary software (funded by IP laws) too!  If movies are copyrighted, companies like Pixar have in-house 3D packages, but like hell they will share it with anybody, IP laws or not.

AutoCAD?  Would companies like Arup make software in house?  Would access to the actual computers be restricted (maybe by running on a server)?

iPods, computers, cellphones, etc - You couldn't use companies like Foxconn, they'd just copy it!  Would any engineering be done in the US anymore?  Why invest in engineering when it doesn't give you an advantage over competitors?

Copyrights don't prevent others from creating original work independently, just from copying the competing product directly.  So having a copyrighted work isn't really any worse than having no work at all because you can just ignore it.

Patents (especially trivial software patents) are another issue, although considering that they only last twenty years hopefully the most annoying ones will expire (and with more prior art new dumb ones might be harder to find).

>>30
You're assuming everybody is selfish with their imaginary property.

If someone needs some software, they would pay for the cost of development and that's it. Nobody else would have to pay that cost anymore, unless they're just selfish bastards.

>>30
You're assuming everybody is selfish with their imaginary property.

If someone needs some software, they would pay for the cost of development and that's it. Nobody else would have to pay that cost anymore, unless they're just selfish bastards.

>>31
Corporations have an obligation to their shareholders to be (somewhat) selfish.

Now, maybe the movie industry could create a cooperative organization to coordinate their efforts, and architectural firms could do that too, and they could have a donation policy based on usage so one company isn't carrying all the weight, maybe eventually they could build some sort of institute or lab so the people working on it could mostly be in one place, and then what do you know that's basically the same thing as having companies that make software and that makes a lot of sense.

>>28
Studying and tinkering software without the related source code is possible and also not practical. It requires a comparatively massive waste of effort in order to study and modify non-trivial portions of software. This is why it is important for users to have access to the source code: in order to help themselves, users must have access to the code to study, tinker and improve software.

Having access to source code is just one part of being a free citizen. Free citizens should also have the right to help their neighbours and contribute to their communities.

>>30
The "who will develop X" doesn't hold much water I'm afraid. 20 years ago, we would have said the same thing about operating systems or compilers, 15 years ago we would have said it about web servers and browsers.

>>35
So you're fine as long as the software is something everyone in the world needs, a corporation has already established the standard design, and you can wait 15 years to get it.  And you don't care if it works particularly well.

>>36
I love it when people focus on the examples, rather than the point.

>>37
I love it when
Stop this. It only makes you look stupid.

>>38
Bumping stupid threads to make stupid posts makes you look stupid.

>>39
Bump

>>37

>>35: Yes, you know intuitively, logically, and statistically that I must be wrong, but here are some examples that are sure to prove otherwise!
>>36: Those examples are terrible.
>>37: Well of course, they're just examples!

…so this point was…that you're wrong?