Advanced

Not sure that I agree with this guy on a moral level

Story: Why free should not always mean cost-freeTotal Replies: 2
Author Content
skelband

May 14, 2011
12:27 PM EDT 		Richard Stallman, I believe (I hope I do not misquote him) is most emphatic that there is no moral opposition to charging for software that is open source. Red Hat do it all the time. What you get for your money is support in the form of their expertise, time and effort.

I must admit that I don't think the author fully understands the distributed nature of most free products which are community developed and maintained. Gnome and others receive remuneration as a body for its costs, but I don't think that it is practical in most cases to remunerate the developers. There are so money of them in many cases that it would be difficult to find them all, let alone properly apportion that cost among them.

I personally am a strong supporter of remunerating effort at the point at which it is delivered. Which is why I am not a strong supporter of copyright as a vehicle for remuneration in general. It is just too open to abuse. I praise Red Hat and their like because people pay for what they perceive is service that they want from them.
phsolide

May 16, 2011
10:40 AM EDT 		Well said.

The side effects of copyright seem to cause more troubles to society as a whole than the benefits outweigh.
ComputerBob

May 16, 2011
11:37 AM EDT
Quoting:The side effects of copyright seem to cause more troubles to society as a whole than the benefits outweigh.
To me, that sounds like someone who doesn't own any copyrights.

Post a reply to this thread:

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post