Free software isn't freeware: why Linux and FOSS have a high

Free software isn't freeware: why Linux and FOSS have a high

Postby David M Williams » Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:48 pm

Microsoft's recent survey proclaimed nearly half the population believe it is ok to use pirated software for personal use. This diminishes the argument by Linux advocates that you can use their operating system without any cost. Yet, you can't confuse free as in cost with free as in freedom. Here's what FOSS really means.

The survey was commissioned by Microsoft Australia and determined 45% of Australians believed software piracy was acceptable for their own use. It would be reasonable to think these viewpoints are shared across the world in similar numbers.

Microsoft has its own set of problems to deal with as a result of the survey findings. They don’t want their software to be used by those who have not paid for it. Can they in good conscience withhold security updates from unlicensed users? Do they increase the price thus making licensed users be unfairly taxed to cover the lost revenue? There is no end of ramifications that the Redmond giant will be considering.

On the other side of the fence, those of us who work to advocate the use of free and open source software, such as the alternate operating system Linux, find that one argument in our arsenal is greatly weakened.

After all, how can you say to someone, “Look, you can have an operating system and office productivity suite and photo editing package and games for free” when they just come back and say, “Well, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop and all these other packages are free to me anyway.”

It really is a major compelling feature of Linux that it comes with an enormously rich suite of software that does everything from powering the computer in the first instance through to personal productivity, software development, music and photo editing, file distribution, Internet applications and much more. All of these items are at no cost.

It’s possible to achieve all the tasks you wish to use your computer for using open source apps. You can do everything without having to spend a cent on software and without ever breaching the legal licensing agreements that apply to these packages.

Yet, this argument means nothing if the people you are pitching it to don’t consider that an expensive package like Microsoft Office, or a much more expensive – and niche – package like Adobe Photoshop actually cost money in the first place.

However, price isn’t the end of the matter. In fact, even if Microsoft and Adobe chose to give away those packages for free from now on it still wouldn’t detract from something fundamental about free software, and which is still a major argument for the adoption of FOSS.

Please read on!

CONTINUED



Article Link at http://www.itwire.com/content/view/23097/1141/
User avatar
David M Williams
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:38 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW

Re: Free software isn't freeware: why Linux and FOSS have a high

Postby Matrix » Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:55 pm

David, thank you, an enjoyable article.

Cheers.
Matrix

~ An intelligent person is never afraid or ashamed to find errors in their understanding of things ~
Matrix
 
Posts: 2191
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:16 pm

Re: Free software isn't freeware: why Linux and FOSS have a high

Postby David M Williams » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:21 am

Why, thank you! Most kind!
User avatar
David M Williams
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:38 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW

Quality isn't the issue

Postby ubuwalker31 » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:40 am

Why is it considered acceptable to commit "software piracy"? Frankly, the reason is obvious. Society as a whole does not consider "copying" a crime. Those that do see "copying" as a crime see it as a very minor crime, probably less serious than speeding.

There is no moral outrage when you tell someone that you have 10,000 songs on your ipod. People simply don't believe that it is stealing. Why is making a mix cassette tape from the radio completely legal, but burning the same mix from your ipod to a CD illegal? It doesn't make any sense to an average person. Why is one stealing and the other is not?

FOSS and freeware have something in common: They have no monetary cost. Using any software is an economic decision. People weigh the costs and benefits of using FOSS vs. proprietary software. If you go to the supermarket to buy groceries, and you see the generic store brand for $1 and the big name brand for $1, which do you buy? Does it matter that the store band is organic? Does it matter that the name brand is known for higher quality? FOSS' problem is branding. Mozilla's Firefox does great with its open source offerings - people know and trust it through word of mouth - but why has the vast majority of the general public not heard of Linux, but have heard of Microsoft Windows? Lack of marketing and lack of clear branding.
User avatar
ubuwalker31
 

Re: Free software isn't freeware: why Linux and FOSS have a high

Postby M H » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:08 am

I wrote about something similar in my Blog back in July 2005 its called Sunset Policy for Software Ripoff
and can be viewed here: http://www.melspctech.net/blog/?p=5 More and more proprietary software is
doing this as well as so called free Proprietary software.
M H
User avatar
M H
 

Re: Free software isn't freeware: why Linux and FOSS have a high

Postby omouse » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:30 am

The article title is incorrect. It should read instead read: "Free Software isn't freeware: Why GNU/Linux and Free Software have a high standard".

It isn't just a philosophical/political stand, it's also a technical one. Almost all distributions that use the Linux kernel also use the GNU core utilities among other GNU Project tools. They are intertwined and both are needed to have an operating system, so it is GNU/Linux, not just Linux and not just GNU.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

Free Software is in favour of preserving the rights of users, while Open Source licenses typically are in favour of more developer rights (such as being able to incorporate code into proprietary applications). This is why it is said that "open source" is simply a software development methodology...it doesn't guarantee freedom for users.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-sour ... point.html
User avatar
omouse
 

If Firefox can do it, why can't Linux?

Postby Richard Chapman » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:04 am

"Mozilla's Firefox does great with its open source offerings - people know and trust it through word of mouth - but why has the vast majority of the general public not heard of Linux, but have heard of Microsoft Windows? Lack of marketing and lack of clear branding."

Firefox is an application. Windows users can download it just like they do with dozens of other "free" applications and start using it right away. Nothing has changed much with their computer. It's still the same old Windows. Linux, or GNU/Linux, is not an application. It's an environment. As in "we're not Kansas anymore". Both Firefox and Linux are FLOSS. I have a calculator on my desktop that's FLOSS too but it has much more in common with Firefox than it does with Linux. To simply say Linux isn't as prevalent as Firefox because it isn't marketed correctly ignores the fact that they are in completely different markets. Now for the "clear branding" part. That's a euphemism for "too many distros". Here's what's dangerous about that kind of thinking: "Make it more like Windows and it will succeed like Windows". And it sure as hell will, just like Windows. The World doesn't need another Windows. We are barely surviving the one we have. Monoculture in a world of malware is a losing battle and we are paying 13.5 billion USD for the privilege of losing it.
User avatar
Richard Chapman
 

Next

Return to The Linux Distillery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron