Shay wrote:

> "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.

Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly 
opposed to it. Why not sell the free software you produce? When someone 
hires a software company to produce a solution for some problem, why 
shouldn't the software become free software? The company gets paid, the 
customer can use the software and hand give it to others. For low level 
things (webserver, databases, kernels), one can get money through 
donations (Kickstarter comes to mind).

> 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.

But you are not bound to some certified software and hardware and you do 
not bind others. For example, this makes it possible for a new hardware 
manufacturer to produce hardware without the windows logo (i.e. without 
undeactivatable Secure Boot).
Personal example: http://8devices.com/carambola
I use this thing as a router for my home.

> 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. 

No, you make it better:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s01.html
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s02.html
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s03.html
If you are interested in Unix, read the whole book:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/

> 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."

Yes, this is the dumbing-down of society. I claim that this has been 
done throughout history. Keeping people dumb makes it easier to control 
them. Religions are particularly good at this. That is also the reason 
why I think that user-friendliness of software is not first priority, 
technical excellency is.

> 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?

Definitely, but hardware is actually a thing, not just a number like 
software. Same for books. The forum is more difficult and is currently 
beyond the scope of my opinion and this post.
Don't forget that the initial discussion was about giving away for free. 
Do not give hardware away for free. Dumping old computers on Africa for 
free is a sin.

And finally, please keep in mind that money is in no way an accurate 
representation of invested effort, wealth or happyness. It has lost this 
property long ago. Nowadays even money is just a number.

Post a reply to this message