Skip to main content
GameDev.net gamedev.net
🔒 Locked

Free Software: The Consequences of being a good neighbor (A rant)

Started by WazzatMan Nov 8, 2009 at 11:29 AM 92 replies 15.8k views
Original Post
WazzatMan
WazzatMan
Please note that I no longer hold the opinions I express in this thread. In fact, I renounce and reject them. I'd like to think that I have a better outlook now, one which places talent, hard work, and creativity above petty politics. Apart from that I never had any right to dictate what other people should do with their intellectual property, or to criticize their choice of license; I apologize if I have offended anyone. Thank you. The Free Software Foundation states that for software to be free it must be compatible with the four cardinal freedoms: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Freedom 2 implies that a program's legitimite buyer has the right to distribute that program, to help his neiboughr. Free software is supposed to be free like free speach, but this freedom blurs the line between "Free like free speech" and "Free like free beer". Is there something wrong with being a good samaritan? No, of course not. If your neiboughr is a non-profit organization, you should be a good neiboughr. If your neiboughr is a student in a catch-22 situation of needing capital in order to learn how to earn capital, you should be a good neiboughr. If your neiboughr is an educational or research institution looking for new ways to improve our lives, you should be a good neiboughr. If your neiboughr is a cheap-ass mudda-focka who does not comprehend, nor appreciate, the value of freedom, you should not be a good neiboughr. If your neiboughr is a corporate parasite who wants to use your knowledge to further hold humanity captive, you should DEFINATELY NOT BE A GOOD NEIBOUGHR. A software engineer's time is valuable. Like all media, Software requires a considerable investment in time. Workers aren't paid because "Capitalism is evil boo hoo hoo" but because they should, by moral decree, be compensated for their time; Time they could have used to play with their children, enjoy the country-side, to relax, to get fit, and to better themselves, but which they instead used for our benefit. Workers, unlike corporate and social parasites, are the most valuable members of society. Capitalism is not evil, Corporate Socialism and greed are evil. It is a great tragedy of our time that we allowed the Ayn Rand peanut gallery to hijack the theories of Adam Smith to further support for greed and corporate socialism--That Ayn Rand idolized a child rapist and derogated mourners should be an indication of her mental stability. It is also a tragedy that we have lost touch of Adam Smith's social conciounse and his original intention in developing his theories--To prove that Mercantilism, a more in your face version of Corporate Socialism, was unworkable. What is Corporate Socialism? Corporate Socialism is the invasion of government by a corporation so that the government may work against the people, and the workers--Think of the numerous lobbyists in the American Political ecosystem. Corporate Socialism is the abuse of a Corporation's position as a monopoly so that it may further invade people's lives--Think DRM. Corporate Socialism is the invasion of public institutions, such as educational institutions, so that the corporation may unfairly invade the market, and control what people can learn--Think Adobe Photoshop. Corporate Socialism is the invasion of media and broadcasting, so that the corporation may choose what information the people should be exposed to, and thereby engineer our very existence--Do I really need to provide an example? Markets for products which detriment our lives are created all the time, think tabacco. News stations contradict each other all the time, so someone is definately trying to engineer something. Products which have real value are ignored all the time, and pure crap rakes in the biggest load of cash based purely on it's marketing campaign. How can we protect ourselves from Corporate Socialism? Education. Education is the anathema of Corporate Socialism. Learn, learn from everything you can learn from. Learn judiciously. Learn from school. Learn from your life. Open your mind, and think. Then inform, teach, and allow others to absorb and scrutinize your knowledge. Never stop growing as a person. If you have knowledge, share it. Stuck in your head as it is, your knowledge will do not do good to anyone, especially not you. Make media broadcasting cheap. Make it easily available. Make it so cheap and easily available that we rid ourselves of the myth that people on TV are Gods. We are already moving along this path, thanks in no small part to the internet. Free yourself of the illusion that people who are richer than you are somehow better than you. The richest people on Earth did not gain their wealth because they are smarter or stronger. They gained their wealth through fraud and Corporate Socialism, or worse, by inheriting it. No one gains that much wealth through natural means. If you want a graphics designer, ask for a graphics designer. Don't ask for someone who knows adobe photoshop. If you are a software developer, make your program cross-platform, so that people may use it wherever they like. Realize that a hierarchy is not neccesary for a company to operate. It is also not part and parcel of Capitalism. Worker's cooperatives are relatively succesful, and when workers are given dignity and a stake in the company their production is increased, the administritive costs are lowered, the pie is split more evenly, and ethical implications are more likely to be considered. Realize that there is NO INVISIBLE HAND. If we do not actively try to make our lives better, noone is going to make them better for us. But most importantly, realize that you are not defeating Corporate Socialism if you give away software for free, TO EVERYONE. You are simply hurting the worker. And you do not do people favors by giving away PIRATED software. You are simply increasing the market of proprietery software. Software isn't beer, it has more dignity. And no one deserves free software, unless they understand -why- it is free. Free, as in freedom. With free software, you have the freedom to learn how that software works--Just like a mechanic has the freedom to learn how a particular car works. You have the freedom to adapt that software to your needs. Just like how you would adapt any tool to your needs. Most importantly, with free software, you are given the freedom to use that software however you wish. There is no umbilical cord between you and the corporation, they cannot commit acts of Corporate Socialism against you. You are free to use parts of that free software in your own free software. You are free to modify that software however you like. And yes, you are free to redistribute it however you like. Freedom number 2 comes at a huge price. Because free software allows freedom of redistribution, you don't have to pay money to the workers for it, it is yours without price, wheater you deserve it or not. This freedom is fundamentally there so that the other freedoms may be excersized, and so that vital technology is not kept out of the hands of the people. Free software is there so that we have more opportunities in our lives, and so that the Corporate Socialists are kept on their toes. It's not there so you don't have to pay for Microsoft Word; It's not there to hurt the workers, who are being exploited by the Corporate Socialists. Capitalism can be used for good, it was meant to be used for good. So please, pay for your free software, and drop the "Free as in free beer" crap. You have no idea of how much the quality of our lives can be increased if we pay because we want to.. not because we have to. [Edited by - WazzatMan on May 19, 2010 3:01:56 PM]
KaptainKomunist
KaptainKomunist
tl;dr version

You wrote some 'free software' and nobody is making donations?
That's quite a rant. I'll give you points for actually bothering to use paragraph breaks.

I think you need to look at GPLv3. It should address a lot of your concerns. Some companies already have been successfully sued over GPL licence violations. http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/119355
owl
owl
Quote:
Original post by KaptainKomunist
I'll give you points for actually bothering to use paragraph breaks.


That just made my day.

OP: You should always be a good neighbour. It's not in our hands (as citizens) to do justice. That's why governments have a judicial systems (The alternative would be anarchy).
[size="2"]I like the Walrus best.
Cypher19
Cypher19
It's spelled "n e i g h b o u r", by the way.
eedok
eedok
Quote:
Original post by Cypher19
It's spelled "n e i g h b o u r", by the way.

no it's spelled:
Quote:

* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

:p

not sure why it's not spelled like that through the rest of the post
owl
owl
Quote:
Original post by eedok
Quote:
Original post by Cypher19
It's spelled "n e i g h b o u r", by the way.

no it's spelled:
Quote:

* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

:p

not sure why it's not spelled like that through the rest of the post


It makes sense in teh context of freedom.

I mean the free beer part.
[size="2"]I like the Walrus best.
liquidAir
liquidAir
Quote:
Original post by eedok
Quote:
Original post by Cypher19
It's spelled "n e i g h b o u r", by the way.

no it's spelled:
Quote:

* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

:p


Regional differences!

Binomine
Binomine
Quote:
Original post by WazzatMan
This freedom is fundamentally there so that the other freedoms may be excersized, and so that vital technology is not kept out of the hands of the people. Free software is there so that we have more opportunities in our lives....So please, pay for your free software, and drop the "Free as in free beer" crap.
Wow, I'm still trying to get this rant down to a tl;dr version.

I think your thesis is, free software should be free as in freedom, but it shouldn't be free as in costing nothing. How does that work with freedom #0 and #1? That we should be able to view, run and understand any program we wish.

It would seem to me a system that allowed #0 and #1, but not #2 would create a software oligarchy, where only money classes which could afford software be allowed to study, run and understand it. And those unable to purchase the software not allowed freedom #0 or #1, simply by not being able to afford it.

By saving us from "corporate socialism", you cast us off into software monarchy.
Quote:
You have no idea of how much the quality of our lives can be increased if we pay because we want to.. not because we have to.
Buy, consume, obey. True happiness can only come through purchasing it.




Machaira
Machaira
Quote:
Original post by WazzatMan
The Free Software Foundation states that for software to be free it must be compatible with the four cardinal freedoms:

And I should care about the Free Software Foundation's definition, why exactly?

Quote:
Original post by WazzatMan
If you are a software developer, make your program cross-platform, so that people may use it wherever they like.

Why? Why should I spend my time as a developer making my software run on platforms I don't care about?

Quote:
Original post by WazzatMan
So please, pay for your free software,...

Playing Devil's Advocate - why? If it's free, why do I need to pay for it? Kind of a contradiction.

Quote:
Original post by WazzatMan
You have no idea of how much the quality of our lives can be increased if we pay because we want to.. not because we have to.

You're correct here at least, I have idea. Clue me in, please. Also, please tell me how I'm to survive as an indie developer if I give my games away for nothing and hope that people decide they like it enough to toss a couple bucks my way?

I just don't get this whole "free software" attitude. What happened to TANSTAAFL? [sad]
Former Microsoft XNA and Xbox MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on game development
stupid_programmer
stupid_programmer
If you want to do open source and make money I think you have to be in the business of selling support.

As for the rest, I think Machaira said it better then I could. It's your choice to put things out there for free and then expect people to give you charity. Development time is expensive, thats why I charge a price for it and only target platforms to maximize that profit.

As a developer I have no problem paying people for third party libraries as I know the effort that goes into them. Then general public doesn't, they think you type a few "codes" and you got a working program. If you could get people to understand the work that does get involved you might have a better chance of them giving something back. But there is always going to be that pirate mentality of just doing what benefits you.
Sneftel
Sneftel
Quote:
Original post by stupid_programmer
If you want to do open source and make money I think you have to be in the business of selling support.


I was listening to ESR give a talk, you know, in the "whatever ESR feels like talking about today" way he tends to, and in response to a question about making money on open source, he said this:

Quote:
I think it went something like this
If you want to make a living as a programmer, it behooves you to find someone who needs you to make them a program.


This blew my mind. The implication here is that the consumer software market -- you know, video games, word processors, operating systems -- is only a tiny part of the actual programming-for-pay that goes on in the world today. This is a crappy thing to try to make money on in an open source context -- you can't sell the software, so you have to sell support, or solicit donations, or charge for clever add-ons, or the like. The much larger part of the market, however, is programmers working on bespoke software that will likely only ever be used in unmodified form by a single organization, and this is where OSS can actually shine. In this context, open source benefits programmers, by reducing the amount of redundant programming that goes on, while still keeping them paid for doing the stuff that is specific and useful to their parent organization.
HostileExpanse
HostileExpanse
I'm just surprised that a Randroid hasn't come in to blast the threadstarter yet.


But, any minute now.......
WazzatMan
WazzatMan
Quote:
You wrote some 'free software' and nobody is making donations?


Quote:
If you want to do open source and make money I think you have to be in the business of selling support.


Actually no, I'm not that experienced :). I'm still at the hobbyist stage, and I've been mostly working on my own stuff. I have a fulltime job which sustains my lifestyle, and I will program in my free time wheater I'm receiving money or not, because it's my hobby. That's how it is for most people, and that's why noone ever complains about this stuff.

But I'm trying to look at the bigger picture. How can we build an economy based around free software? How can we bury the idea of proprietery software altogether?

I don't know if any of you ever discussed this with supporters of proprietery software, but their argument always boils down to:

What's my incentive to create something if I don't get paid for it?

And you know what: In general, the free software community seems a bit stagnant. 99% of the projects sponsored by the FSF are perfect copy cats. Sure, there are a few projects which push the envelope, but most of them are just free versions of proprietery software. That's what you get when you have a good majority of your base made up of hobbyists like me. People who have other full time commitments, and who program in their free time because it's fun.

On the flip side, and a lot of people mentioned this: You have fulltime OSS employees backed up by large non-profit, sometimes for-profit, organizations. They make their living off a combination of charity, licenses aimed at large businesses, advertising (In Mozilla and Google's case), support fees, education fees, periphilery devices, and periphilery media (Such as books).

Sure, they make money, and sometimes they make good money. But you have to admit, some of them don't have a financial income that can be classified as secure.

Sun was bought by Oracle, and we still have to see the fallout that will come from that. I doubt that Java, and mySQL, will become proprietery overnight, but I can guarantee you that things will never be the same.

Most of Mozilla's revenue comes from the Google Start Page they have. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Mozilla's lifeline is tied directly to Google, and with Google investing in their own browser, this makes Mozilla's future a bit bleak.

Sure, technically Mozilla firefox can never actually die. At worst it will lose all fulltime support. But that would be a big blow to it's development, and what I consider a fundamental pillar of the Free software movement.

Quote:
By saving us from "corporate socialism", you cast us off into software monarchy.


I was thinking more along the lines of "Ethical Capitalism". Where you pay for something useful, which gives you all the rights of ownership on payment, and which stays out of your business once that transaction is complete.

Quote:
Why? Why should I spend my time as a developer making my software run on platforms I don't care about?


Fair enough, I shouldn't ask people to make their software cross platform. I try to make my software run on linux, windows, and mac for one pragmatic reason:

I'd like to reach the largest possible audience.

One ethical reason:

I don't want a user's choice in OS to influence them when choosing my product.

And one personal reason:

One of the chief reasons that cross platform development across personal computers isn't as easy as it should be is because interface standards were blatantly ignored. This disgusts me.

Quote:
Playing Devil's Advocate - why? If it's free, why do I need to pay for it? Kind of a contradiction.


Quote:
You're correct here at least, I have idea. Clue me in, please. Also, please tell me how I'm to survive as an indie developer if I give my games away for nothing and hope that people decide they like it enough to toss a couple bucks my way?


Quote:
I just don't get this whole "free software" attitude. What happened to TANSTAAFL?


Quote:
It's your choice to put things out there for free and then expect people to give you charity.


One thing I didn't make clear is that I'm not talking about putting software online and asking for charity.

I'm talking about good old fashion selling. But you sell the source along with the software, or as an optional package. And with it you give your buyer all the rights of ownership he deserves, include the right of redistribution.

What I mean is:

* You don't place arbitrary counter-productive laws on the buyer.
* You don't weigh the buyer down with crippling DRM and bloatware.
* You don't hide your knowledge out of fear that you'll end up penniless without it.

But for that to happen, the buyer needs to understand that he has certain responsibilities:

A. He shouldn't start a massive "sharing" ring.
B. He shouldn't make a cosmetic change and resell your software as if he wrote it from scratch.

A is a problem with proprietery software too. But it's B that scares people away from the idea of free software.

As far as I know, GPL doesn't protect you from B as such. It's the buyer's nature that protects you from that infringement, like a lot of things in this World.

To give my argument some perspective: One thing I equate software to is litreature. As such, litreature isn't free as in beer, but it's free as in speech.

When you buy a book, you can:

* Share it with your friends.
* Examine the sentence structure, plot, and pacing at the closest possible detail.
* Read the book as many times as you like, wherever you like.
* Take the ideas from that book, and use them in your own book.
* Build up those ideas, and share them to increase the collective knowledge of the human race.

When you buy proprietery software, you are:

* Under constant surveillance.
* Ignorant of the threats this software has exposed you to.
* Forced to pay high draconian prices for the privelege of using the software.
* Unable to learn directly from the software, and in some cases under threat of lawsuit for learning indirectly from the software.
* Unable to modify the software to adapt it to your needs, and therefore forced to jump the endless stream of hoops to get the provider to change the software...at a price which can only be classified as highway robbery.

And you know what?

It breaks my heart that we've lost a lot of the source code from the old video games. All because the developers were dead scared people might learn how to make video games like they do. Of course, it wasn't really the developers, it was the people who provided them the means of production, i.e. the employers.

It kills me that I can't buy the source code for Interplay's Wasteland at a cheap price and mess around with it. Imagine if a car enthusiast couldn't get his hands on a genuine mustang. I could create a replica, but then it's not the same.

In general, the result is:

* We don't learn things as quickly.
* We reinvent the wheel rather than break new ground.
* Some of us are just plain paranoid. We waste time on useless bloatware rather than actual programming.
* We seem to be at war with our consumers.

And worst of all:

* People either think software is cheap, or it's something from mars.

Because when knowledge isn't that open on a subject, people don't understand it. And when developers of that product seem content to create things for free, people just don't value them. The thing is that software doesn't have to be "free" for it to be free.

So I'm trying to get the idea out there: You don't have to give things for free in order to promote freedom.


EDIT:

Quote:
In this context, open source benefits programmers, by reducing the amount of redundant programming that goes on, while still keeping them paid for doing the stuff that is specific and useful to their parent organization.


Bespoke is the way to go. People will always need to have things done specifically for them, and OSS makes that possible. It also sustains the market for IT department in non-IT industries, which are generally more secure. Whereas proprietery software is trying to get rid of the IT department by releasing bloated, generic software.

You don't want to be Oracle's customer when they release the Nazgul.
OrangyTang
OrangyTang
Quote:
Original post by WazzatMan
In general, the free software community seems a bit stagnant. 99% of the projects sponsored by the FSF are perfect copy cats.

Please don't conflate all open source software with the FSF. I'm sure there are lots of us that would happily (and do) contribute towards an open source project but would rather have nothing to do with the FSF.
WazzatMan
WazzatMan
Quote:
Please don't conflate all open source software with the FSF. I'm sure there are lots of us that would happily (and do) contribute towards an open source project but would rather have nothing to do with the FSF.


I don't.

I said in the next paragraph:

Quote:
On the flip side, and a lot of people mentioned this: You have fulltime OSS employees backed up by large non-profit, sometimes for-profit, organizations. They make their living off a combination of charity, licenses aimed at large businesses, advertising (In Mozilla and Google's case), support fees, education fees, periphilery devices, and periphilery media (Such as books).


What I didn't mention is that these projects are also supported by hobbyists. And that's not mentioning the large number of projects which aren't backed up by anyone but their own community.

I certainly never meant to say that all Free Software orbits around the Free Software Foundation. I prefer to use the term Free Software, rather than Open Source, because I don't think Open Source emphasizes the freedom aspect. It frames open source code as a purely pragmatic design decision rather than an ethical one. It's just semantics.

And yes I do agree with a lot of what Richard Stallman has to say. That doesn't mean that I'm ignorant that a lot of people -- and a lot of OSS supporters -- don't, nor do I hold that against them.
jackolantern1
jackolantern1
I have no problem at all with commercial support for open-source, free software.

As an example, when my company was considering whether to buy licenses for Microsoft Office on our new desktops we got a while ago, or use Open Office and spend the license money on commercial training for our representatives, I lobbied to go for the latter. We ended up getting Open Office on all of our desktops and had someone come in to do a training clinic on how to use Calc, Write and Base (not everyone got the Base, because they don't all use it). So instead of having MS Office and 100 reps who don't know how to do anything but type in it (these are entry-level positions), we have Open Office, and 100 reps who are quite competent with it. Productivity has gone up by nearly 20%, because we don't have reps wandering around the center asking how to attach a .doc file to an email, or spending a half an hour trying to un-fudge their spreadsheet that they just destroyed. It was well worth it.
ChaosEngine
ChaosEngine
You are so wrong on so many points I don't even know where to start.

You might be a hobbyist programmer, fine, but proprietary software puts food on my table, beer in my fridge and lets me do stuff I want to do that is non-software related. I don't want to build an economy based on free software, nor do I want to "bury proprietary software". In fact, you started your argument on the premise that both of these are laudable aims and you're wondering how to achieve them.

Also software != books, cars, buildings or anything else. I could give the exact schematics for my car along with details instructions on how to build it from the ground up, and you'd still be better off buying from the car maker, since you don't have the resources to build it. There's no such issue with software, unless you count game content, which introduces the idea that artists work is more important that developers.

As for making your software multi-platform, that's great in theory, but in practice it's often not really worth it. Given the relatively small percentage of the market that doesn't run on windows, I need to be convinced that adding linux and mac support will not cost more than I'll get in return (and this is from someone who just bought a mac).Plus, almost all bespoke software is written for a homogeneous environment.

I could write more, but I'm busy trying to earn a living writing software.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight
WazzatMan
WazzatMan
Quote:
I don't want to build an economy based on free software, nor do I want to "bury proprietary software". In fact, you started your argument on the premise that both of these are laudable aims and you're wondering how to achieve them.


Fair enough, my question is, why aren't they laudible?

I agree that proprietery software pays your bills -- To be honest, I'm a bespoke programmer --, but what would be wrong with open source software paying your bills? And I don't mean paying them through support or by selling books, but I mean actually paying them the old fashioned way.

The cost to protect software is also becoming ridiculous. And I don't feel I'm exageratting when I say that most people pay for proprietery software out of the goodness of their heart, because getting them through illegal means is ridiculously easy.

Quote:
Also software != books, cars, buildings or anything else. I could give the exact schematics for my car along with details instructions on how to build it from the ground up, and you'd still be better off buying from the car maker, since you don't have the resources to build it.


Of course, but technically those same constraints don't apply to books. Blatant copyright infringement is just slightly easier to detect in litreature.

Quote:
There's no such issue with software, unless you count game content, which introduces the idea that artists work is more important that developers.


And yeah, I'd rather have a World with proprietery software than one in which programmers are considered unworthy of payment. Frankly though, we currently have both.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.

Sign in to reply to this topic.