Re: [OOT] Free Software - was Re: Toner refill
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:17:36 -0500
Chris Jones <cjns1989@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:25:20PM EST, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Chris Jones wrote:
> > > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > > Free Software has *never* been about cost. It is about the
> > > > freedoms to use, study, and modify the software.
> > >
> > > How would one ‘use, study, and modify the software’ if one could
> > > not afford it in the first place?
> >
> > The cost is not a monetary cost.
>
> [..]
>
> Thanks for reminding me that the discussion was in reference to the
> GPL concept of ‘Free Software¹’ as stated in its preamble, rather
> than the generally accepted meaning of ‘free software’ in everyday
> English.
>
But don't lose sight of the fact that almost all restrictions on usage,
copying, modifying etc. are a *direct* result of the software not being
free as in beer, of the need to maximise the incomes of businesses in
the software trade.
As a very minor contributor to a Microsoft technical group (rather less
so now MS has abandoned Usenet and moved to web forums) I'm aware that
a lot of the problems with the particular product I dealt with were in
fact licensing issues, and on a bad day up to half the queries could be
related to deliberate restrictions on the software to maximise revenue.
So 'free as in beer' remains a core issue, possibly *the* issue,
whatever the philosophical niceties piled on top of it. Once there is
revenue to protect, the whole ethos changes.
For me, one of the great strengths of free software (however you define
it) is resilience. If my server breaks, I scurry about in the loft for
a while, assemble a set of workable bits, chuck a backup onto it (or
rebuild from /etc, if the hardware is seriously limited) and I'm back in
business.
Do most of you realise that almost all copies of Windows, and
many of Windows Server, are contractually tied to the hardware? You can
replace the motherboard only if the original is unobtainable, you
cannot simply buy a new computer and move the OS to it. Not under your
EULA, anyway. And yet again, we're talking money. A portable copy of
Windows will cost twice the price of the tied OEM version, so few
people outside the IT business bother. And you wouldn't believe the
virtualisation licensing, some versions of Windows not being permitted
to run virtually under any conditions.
--
Joe
Reply to: