Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:26:37 +1200
Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 03:20:03PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:08:58 +0300
> > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jo, 19 iul 12, 01:17:49, Doug wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the bandwidth, but I think the Linux user--I'm certainly
> > > > one of them--needs to realize what real specialized software is, and
> > > > what it costs to develop, and why it's not free.
> > >
> > > Please don't confuse free (beer) with free(dom). Also, I don't have a
> >
> > It's not that simple. If I realize my software as FLOSS, even if I
> > charge money for it, how many copies can I realistically hope to sell
> > if any and all my customers are perfectly free to distribute it gratis?
>
> There are plenty of Debian consultants making money. Just because the
> source code is available, doesn't mean you have to spoon feed the user
> for free.
Again, I'm certainly not denying the many possibilities of making money
with FLOSS. I'm just arguing that a) it's kind of pedantic to insist on
the distinction between free as in beer and free as in speech, since
any software that's FLOSS might just as well be free as in beer
(although certainly not the other way around), too (although money can
still be made off it in other ways) and b) if the developers of some
software spend hundreds of thousands or millions on its development,
it's pretty glib for us to breezily tell them "don't charge for it -
just make back your investment by selling consulting services", and so
on.
--
Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Reply to: