"Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fabb28$1@news.povray.org...

> So:
> - Free (as in beer) closed source software is bad.
> - Free (as in speach and beer) software is good.
> - Free (as in speach but not beer) software is good too.

Here's where the second makes me nervous:

Let's say I set up a perfectly free (beer and speech), Stallmanesque 
computer.

I've still purchased "closed-source" hardware. And, the first time I visit 
an Internet forum to learn about my software, I've "purchased" support: By 
reading the forum I've most-likely viewed advertisements or solicitations, 
and by posting on the forum I've drawn other patrons and/or donors to the 
site. Some sites are owned by a software project (say, KDE), but KDE is 
pretty useless to me without other software projects that do not own the 
site. I might even (have, with Suse) purchase books. By even telling anyone 
something positive about my Stallmanesque computer, I've acted as an 
advertiser for the hardware manufacturers, forum owners, and book 
publishers.

I don't mind that any of those people profit indirectly from software, but I 
realize I'm making it impossible to profit from actually creating that 
software. This in turn makes software free (as in beer) for the large 
companies you've suggested I avoid. And I mitigate this with what? 
distribution of open-source learning? That's of no use to most people, and, 
I'll bet, fewer people every day due to the tablet "revolution."

As hard and expensive as it may be to learn programming and buy a computer 
to program on, it's (I suspect) a hell of a lot harder and more expensive to 
manufacture hardware, run a massive and profitable forum, or print and ship 
crates of books. Are we breaking the lowest rungs on the ladder?

-Shay

Post a reply to this message