Hi everyone,

Personally I have no problem with developers seller there software for a reasonable amount. I see it as like buying a book - it's not the paper that it's made from that your paying for, but the text and intellectual property. I also think that developers need money to live on - and selling there software is a good, honest and useful way.

However, some people seem to have a moral objection to purchasing software. I'm wondering what is the objection people have with proprietary applications.

Lster

I don't have objection about it, just don't want to pay for a software, whether it's proprietary or not. I't's not a moral problem, but a financial problem for me.

If there wasn't any proprietary applications or Operating Systems and all software had to be open source would we be better or worse off?

Advantages;

Viruses, viral marketing spam wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

Without vendor lock-in anti-competitive practices hardware compatibility problems wouldn't be as bad either.

Software would be selected on it's merits not on the size of the marketing budget, legal budget, dirty tricks budget...

Disadvantages;

There might be some but can't think of any right now.

Out of the 6 of us who have voted so far, 4 think it's ok to sell for a reasonable price. Now if we could all agree on what reasonable is.

I agree. Free software (IMHO) is nearly always better than the equivalent proprietary software. However occasionally there might be some really amazing game or something - that's the only time I really buy software.

As I said, developers must rely on donations.

If you look at games, there aren't any free games that compare to stuff like Far Cry, No One Lives Forever or Halo.

Lster

This thread name seem to be a little confusing. Appereantly you mean gratis and not libré software.

Sorry, it may be a little confusing . Anyhow I mean the GNU definition of free (is that libre?).

Lster

I don't mind having some proprietary software in my computer, especially games. But my operating system must be open source.

Yes libré is the GPL defenition. But Richard Stallman argues that it is pefectly legal and moral correct to charge a price for free software. Of course that was what he did in the past, so that is what he has to say

I think it is moral correct if you inform the buyer of their rights, i.e. that they can obtain it for free.

But these days with global internat virtual no one charges for distribution, but instead relies on donations.

I've got no problem with the sale of software. It's not like music where we'd be better off the artists weren't motivated by money. The problem is when the companies start employing really abusive business tactics to get us to pay for the stuff (DRM, encryption) and abuse their monopolies etcetc.

Games software, is still software, and that needs to be proprietary does it not? I mean you could have free games but they would be rubbish :P

Of course, there could be good free games - I'll happily wear a bumper sticker promoting them, but that doesn't mean I think selling software is wrong and immoral.

--

It's a different matter though, to consider whether closed-source is imorral. What have they got to hide?
I find it odd that free developers can hit upon Microsoft patents without realising it and still be pulled up for it without having even seen the code. I've got issue with the whole patents thing anyway... what does it matter who thought of it first?

Not really, developers don't sit on chairs made of money. But they shouldn't price them the absurd prices they put(Photoshop for $700?! Vista Ultimate for $400?! No thanks!) Reasonable price would be from 50 to 100 for an OS.

What I want to know though, is how can an open-source software be sold? Does the source come when you buy it?

Extreme Coder

Agree.

If you really want to know, I suggest you read this book: "Free Software, Free Society" - By Richard M. Stallman.

Reasonable prices in capitalist countries are set by the market. If people did not want to buy them, then the prices would come down. If people voted with their wallets and bought another competing product, then the prices could not hold. Of course, try to get a computer installed without Windows is not easy, and most people will take whatever comes with it.

Open-source software (software libre) mean that the source code is included and you can change the program however you want. The source code may not necessarily be included with the software in a package, but it should be readily available on a website.

Years ago I never paid for software, I would download dodgy copies. Find the cracks and stuff, run this illegal software with little concern. Things have changed since that time. I discovered open source plus I started to play games on-line. These two things have changed my mind about what I run on my computers.

The games... Most games these days have strong protection. Also if you are going to play a game for hours and hours then you should support the game writers by paying them.

Open source... There is such an array of great software out there. Not just Linux, but for Windows too.

First of all, nobody actually sells software. They sell software licenses.

Anyway, selling software licenses is OK, but patenting software is like patenting a cake recipe. Software is just a set of instructions.

Under the Gnu Puplic License you actually sell your software. And luckely for us RMS and some layers thought up a way of preserving our rights and make sure no one screws us.

And I don't even really program much

But things have changed since the introduction of linux (i.e. The cathedral and the Bazaar).

I eagerly await the next Gnu draft due in a couple of months.

But if the source is available to you without buying the software, that means that you could get the source, compile it and run it without having to pay anything at all. Which in turn could make the software's sales go down heavily. Would you mind explaining that to my (apparently) tiny brain?
Also, which software out there follows this type of selling mechanism?


Extreme Coder

Red Hat. MySQL. These are rather notable examples.

In these examples, you pay for support.

Another business model can be found by looking historically; rms programmed custom stuff for emacs for $250 an hour.

Although those were not the type of software I had in mind(I had the idea of more like a pay and get software), but I think I get the idea.
I also looked around a bit, and apparently Cedega does that. You can buy it for its price, but you can get its code freely from its CVS.(but without the copyright breaking code)


Extreme Coder

I don't object to paying for software. I occasionally buy software, even for Linux. I wish there were a "Quicken for Linux" and I would pay for it.

BTW if it turns out that there is any Microsoft intellectual property in the Linux kernel, I would suspect that Microsoft had hired someone to work as a Linux kernel developer and put it there. Microsoft is dirty enough, in my opinion, to do it.