Re: [DotGNU]paying for free software (was Re: `freeing' proprietary software)

[Barry Fitzgerald]

S11001001 wrote:
> 
> 
> I believe that fitzix misspoke; what I think he meant is, that it is a
> natural *property* of bits and bytes to be copied with incredible ease.
> Any restriction of such is "artificial scarcity", i.e., bad for everyone
> else.
>

Yes, thank you.

 
> 
> Yes, but it (control of software usage by the author) is unethical. My
> intention in using software is not to give the software author control
> over my life.
>

If the person who built my house started telling me what I could do with
it - I'd be pretty pissed off.  Why aren't people pissed off like this
when it comes to software?

 

> >
> > But, in the Open Source, who pays the bill??
> 
> Anyone who has an interest in the continued production of Free Software.
> 

Yep - in fact, almost nobody actually pays for baseline
non-differentiated architectural work.  Almost all libraries,
frameworks, and base level systems are available at low cost to the
masses.  For instance: the .Net framework for MS windows is freely
downloadable.  Now, who exactly pays Microsoft's bills?

(And, from a certain analysis, MS isn't even profitable.  So, all is not
equal and proprietary software is not inherently profitable)

        -Barry