# Free vs. Prop. Software. Is free financially viable?



## tuxfan (Sep 21, 2004)

*NOTE:
Please do not treat this thread as Windows vs. Linux OR Gates vs. Stallman thread. This thread is about SOFTWARE IDEOLOGIES and not about SOFTWARES. I want opinions on this to find out whether I am right or wrong in what I think.
*

I have just finished a book titled *Free Software, A Perspective* (given to me by GNUrag, thank you  containing writings of Richard Stallman. I must say I am *impressed by the man*, but must also add that I am *not entirely convinced about the concept* of free (as in freedom) software.

It is an ideallistic approach. Very noble. Good for the society and the users, but doesn't seem good for the programmer. I have been a programmer as well as a user. So can think from both the perspectives. From a user's perspective, I will say I love GNU/Linux because I don't have to spend for it and still get something thats fantastic and better than the alternatives. I can get it from someone who is willing to give it to me. Thanks to Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman.

But from the programmer's perspective it sounds financially unviable. By programmer, I mean a person who does coding for earning his livelihood and does not code only because of his love for development. *Fulfilling my passion for development doesn't give me my food, clothing and other necessities.* I don't mind contributing to free software in my part time. But can't take it up as full time.

*The financial status of Bill Gates and Richard Stallman will amply demonstrate what I am trying to say*. Both are geniuses in their own way. But look at the vast difference in their monetary strengths. Most people (that includes me) are selfish. I can't think about the benefit to the society at my cost. I am not as noble as Stallman/Linus. I will first think about how I will feed myself and my family. I will think what will give me maximum monetary gain out of my efforts. I would not like to give away my code and allow people to freely copy and then wait for someone to sponsor me because they like what I do. I don't want to wait for gratuitious donations!!

Here are a few things I feel like quoting from the book. There may be many more things worth quoting, but can't quote too much.




			
				Richard Stallman on Pg 58 said:
			
		

> What does society need? .... programs that people can read, fix, adapt and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change .... Soceity also needs freedom.


Agreed sir that society needs freedom. But what about the programmer? What about his needs? He needs money to survive and enjoy. Why should he remain dependant on someone's mercy and donations? Once the source code is revealed and people are allowed to copy it without restrictions, how many people will pay him for it? Support and service are just a small part of revenue. For companies with small scale operations, survival on support and service is extremely difficult.




			
				Richard Stallman on Pg 58 said:
			
		

> The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds.


Its quite clear here that money flow, the working capital is not too great and admittedly it is necessary. You are dependant on the either a programmer's socialistic ideas or a donor's willingness to donate. Financially, not a very ideal situation. Programmer is demanding payment for his efforts. He need not beg for donations.




			
				Richard Stallman on Pgs 58 said:
			
		

> The Free Software Foundaton (FSF), a tax-exempt charity for free software development, raises funds by selling GNU CD-ROMs, T-shirts, maunals and deluxe distributions, (all of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from donations.


A software company has to sell T-shirts to earn!! It has to rely on donations!!! Is it what programmer's want?




			
				Richard Stallman on Pg 59 said:
			
		

> Some free software developers make money by selling support services. Cygus Support ..... estimates that about 15 % of its staff activity is free software development â€“ a respectable percentage for a software company


Does this mean that 85% activity towards non-free software is an acceptable norm and it is necessary for survival?




			
				Richard Stallman on Pgs 60 to 62 said:
			
		

> Science must push copyright aside


If a day comes when a programmer cannot claim copyright on the software he has created and has to make it free (as in freedom), how many programmers will still put in 100%? Even as of now, out of all the contributors to the free software, how many are actually doing it full time? If programmers see low revenues, won't they lose motivation? Will that not reduce the pace of R & D? Will that be beneficial to society?




			
				Richard Stallman on Pg 73 said:
			
		

> My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietory software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better.


Admittedly, these are idealistic principles. Can't expect everyone to be as selfless and noble as Stallman.

Let's put all other arguments aside. Just concentrate on the economic fallout from a programmer's point of view. Does he earn his livelihood or enough returns on his efforts if he decides give a free (as in freedom) software? Free software theory sounds more like communist ideas - everything for the society and nothing (or hardly anything) for your own benefit. Proprietory software sounds more like capitalism. Communism sounds great, but at how many places in the world has it survived?

Those who want to *earn* prefer capitalism, those who have to *spend* prefer communalism. As a software user, I would love to use free software because I can even get it without spending. But as a full time commercial programmer, I wouldn't like to give away my source code for free. *Opening out source for mass reviewing (and holding back copyright) still seems somewhat acceptable, but always releasing it under GNU GPL seems unviable*.

I can't remain dependant on donations in spite of putting in so much efforts. I can give a part of my time towards free software, but not entire time. I will have to resort to proprietory software for survival. Even still as of now there are companies like SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. who are financially doing good on free software, but is everything they dish out truly free?

PS : My gut feeling says Linus wouldn't have released the kernel under GNU GPL if he would have felt that he is sitting on something big. He needed people to try it out, he needed contributions and thats why had to open it up. He wasn't that confident. As regards Stallman, he would have released everything irrespective of its financial gain. He seems too selfless.


----------



## DKant (Sep 21, 2004)

First up, I must say..a thought provoking post after a long time.

Secondly, an ideal is an ideal only if it can be brought out of the texbooks, otherwise, it is plain unrealistic, and boils down to day-dreaming. This is a general comment and doesn't directly relate to the Free vs Proprietary debate.

Thirdly, Communism wasn't(note the tense  ) a great idea. It fell, and failed primarily because it was a very very bad idea. Saying that "The better you work the more you work." just doesn't cut. COmmunism also says that "You get what you need." Well, say I need a PS2 right now (just an example  ). As per the laws of communism, I should rely on contributions from others to buy it. In other words, by needing the PS2, *I develop a right to acquire it*. This very idea is repulsive and shockingly foolish. Capitalism on the other hand promises me that I shall get the rewards for my work, and it is *only by working* that I shall procure the means to buy my comfort and satisfy my needs, and not by *merely wishing*. 

Thirdly, since we have agreed ( ) that capitalism is the way to go, most certainly..I must be paid for my work. However, the trick lies in passing on this cost in an efficient manner to the user. To do this one must clearly identify the target group. If my program will help lay users use computers in an efficient way, then it must be priced accordingly. If the lay user wouldn't need, and probably not know to use certain power features (which naturally required a lot more effort to code), I can chop off these features without any harm to anyone. Though this is not something we like, but it is inevitable. Can you get a Chevrolet Optra for 1 lac? Obviously not. We object to high priced software, primarily because it takes nothing to create another copy. On the other hand, you'll need a lot of effort and money to create a replica of an Optra, that performs as well!!

Therefore, the corporate market, which can pay adequately for the services it uses, must act as the _sponge_ for absorbing the impact that reducing the prices in the lay-user segment would have.

At the same time, there are developers in the early stages of their careers (read students) who only want to experiment and learn with various coding tools (for example), and not build software that would actually be distributed for commercial purposes. So, companies like..say..Microsoft could distribute coding tools and other tools for free, while tying up their product with whatever software that's built using these tools. So, when the programmer derives commercial benefit out of the software he builds using these tools, he will owe a certain pre-determined portion of the money that he earns to ..say.. Microsoft. By distributing this cost among all the copies sold, revenue can be upped, while reducing the burden on the end-user.

Well there may be certain concerns regarding misuse of the free coding tools. But these can be addressed, by adding a read-only signature of the coding tool used to the code written by the programmer. This signature/key will require all users to compulsorily register online b4 using the product. If this product is being distributed wiht the consent of the "Company that created the coding tool", then a key tagged with the unique Product ID will be generated, with which the user can start working on the product. OTOH, if this product is being distributed without the consent of the "Company that..." then the key can't be generated and hence the product can't be used. This will effectively kill piracy as well.  

What we are, and should be talking about therefore, is "Reasonably priced software" - aka the middle path.


----------



## netcracker (Sep 21, 2004)

I think what DKant is saying is correct  
opensource can never succeed if it is totaly free.Ther has to be a balance between opensource and copyrighted softwares . If this is the era of open source then I am doomed   ,since I want to become a programmer and I don't want to be at the mercy of other people


----------



## svenkat83 (Sep 22, 2004)

Nice post !!! 
I too like Stallman..but u see,money matters more than anything in Software field! Anyday Microsoft can risk investing a billion dollar in a new concept while no one in opensource will take that risk.

Thats just one of my opinions..I don't have time to put all my points here but lemme say one thing there is nothing that comes close to Commerial product  and when even that comes free(thats the case for most of us) you can't complain!!!


----------



## icecoolz (Sep 22, 2004)

I dont know if open source is such a bad idea from a programmer perspective. If not for open source the we wouldnt have the java program which is one of the most popular, if not the most popular, in the world. Based on the language several other products which are open source is now available and very popular. For Java IDE's there Eclipse and NetBeans and from the Application server side of it theres JBOSS which has been implemented in many large orgs. I know this from personal experience. Also nowadays with the economy being the way it is open source is being looked at and implemented as serious alternative. Now from a programmers perspective, those who want to build the tools will always receive funding if their ideas are competetive enough. I dont know if you guys know of a company called July systems based in Bangalore. They are into developing complete soultions for the mobile world. It was also featured in one of the magazines (Business World I think) as one of the top upcoming companies. Its running purely on VC funding. And the programmers get paid. And they are using only open source software (Java, Apache tomcat and JBOSS) for their development purposes. I think defenitely from a programmers perspective would have to be to think the following things: 

Is my idea good enough ? 
How do I market it to gain the funding I will need to develop it ? 

Open source for me will provide the backbone which will allow me to develop software catering to specific needs. I dont see how from a programmers perspective they will be loosing income either way.


----------



## walking-techie (Sep 22, 2004)

a very nice discussiona going on here..


----------



## walking-techie (Sep 22, 2004)

However tuxfan i believe u r a bit misguided..

here the issue is not whther the software shuld be made free to all.. but the real issue is to make the software code free so that target users can see what their beloved program is made.. but while giving out the code with the software it doesnt mean that the programmer is going empty handed.. the code needs to be given so that end users can make the software work as they require it..
also the original person who developed it may not go empty handed.. becos he can charge u for the software he developed.. the code he gives u as a bonus so that iothers can share his work and personalise it or make iit more efficient or diversify it!!

also recognition is what the programmer gets when he develops an open-source program..

i persnally believe its a wonderful concept..


----------



## firewall (Sep 22, 2004)

Hey.. Tuxfan Here is a good conversaion on differen Free software models 

check it out... *linuxjunkies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33


----------



## tuxfan (Sep 22, 2004)

Have saved this page and also the link given by firewall. Will read both after going offline and then post my reply. I am on a dialup, you see


----------



## gamefreak14 (Sep 22, 2004)

Free software. I don't know why that has to be taken seriously. The benefits of free software does not stand a chance against the Redmond Giant and the likes. However, opensource threatens to seriously cut them down to size. Why discuss about 'free software' when we can compete with competitvely priced software? Everyone knows why linux is not newbie friendly. That can be taken care of, if there weren't a dozen distributions for it. If it was priced at around half the price of windows, there would be far more dedicated programmers and the rest of the honchos would have to seriously reconsider their marketing strategy. Competitive pricing coupled with good documentation and tech support will choke rampant piracy. Now since it's free, it's unfriendly and is fine tuned for geeks. The concept of free software is brilliant only to a certain extent. But when it comes down to the basics, where it matters the most, it loses ground due to it's nature itself. Free isn't always good. The incentive to better your work, to put more effort and finetune your creation depends on capital alone. What Richard Stallman's forgetting is that free software provides a great platform. Ultimately, the winner is the consumer. And what does the consumer say? "Who cares about the programmer?". He'd never say that if he paid for it. 
Btw, tuxfan, that was a brilliant post.


----------



## tuxfan (Sep 22, 2004)

Thank you for appreciating my post. But first up, let me make one thing clear. By free software, I don't mean freeware. Free means the software released under GNU/GPL licence with its source code open plus some other permissions. Absence or presence of monetary costs is not the criteria. Please see the definition of free software on *www.gnu.org. For clarity, I would use a new term for this and call it *freedomware*. In short freeware is not same as freedomware.





			
				icecoolz said:
			
		

> I dont know if open source is such a bad idea from a programmer perspective. If not for open source the we wouldnt have the java program which is one of the most popular, if not the most popular, in the world.
> ....
> ....
> Its running purely on VC funding. And the programmers get paid. And they are using only open source software (Java, Apache tomcat and JBOSS) for their development purposes.


 You have not got me right. The programmers who use java to make applications are actually *users* of java. The people who *made java* (sun in this case) is the programmer when we talk about java. As I said earlier, free (freeware) software is great for users i.e. java programmers in this case.




			
				icecoolz said:
			
		

> Now from a programmers perspective, those who want to build the tools will always receive funding if their ideas are competetive enough.


So even if I have a great idea, I will have to wait for some gratuitious funding? I will have to wait for some VC's mercy!! And what about small time programmers? There are plenty of them. Just take a look at my example below. What happens to a mediocre idea and a medicore programmer who can earn at least a little from his small softwares? Should he join some big bull or get away from the profession?




			
				walking-techie said:
			
		

> but the real issue is to make the software code free so that target users can see what their beloved program is made
> ...
> the code needs to be given so that end users can make the software work as they require it


I agree, opening the source is for the benefit of the user. But here the question is about programmer's benefit.




			
				walking-techie said:
			
		

> also the original person who developed it may not go empty handed.. becos he can charge u for the software he developed.. the code he gives u as a bonus so that iothers can share his work and personalise it or make iit more efficient or diversify it!!
> 
> also recognition is what the programmer gets when he develops an open-source program..


All softwares released under GNU GPL (freedomware) are not only open source. You are even allowed to share it with any one you want. So if you have a copy of a GNU GPL software, you can give it to me and every other person without paying anything to the main programmer. This permission to freely distribute could pinch the programmer of that software. And recognition won't provide me my daily bread and butter. Will it?

Here's an example. We here assume that there is no piracy or that it is well copy-protected.


> There is a small time software firm called M/s. BLiS (*B*ill *Li*nus *S*tallman ). BLiS makes a PIM, keeps excellent features and finds a customer and gives him a licenced copy for Rs. 500. The customer recommends that PIM to his 3 friends & 4 relatives totalling to 7. BLiS gives all of them a copy for Rs. 500 and earns 3500. But if the same software is released under GNU GPL licences, the first cusotomer will never bring in any other paying customer. All that he will do is legally give those people a copy and BLiS loses the income to the tune of Rs. 3500.
> 
> BLiS first took the trouble of coding, then took the trouble of finding a customer. Now if it won't get more customers from references, it will have to go through the trouble (and cost) of finding new cutomers every time!! Or shall it charge the first customer the entire amount of its efforts. In that case, will BLiS ever get a first customer?
> 
> Taking the same example further, now if a big established company gets hold of this software, fine tunes it somewhat with the open source code and starts selling it as proprieory software. What will BLiS gain? Consider the state of Indian courts. :roll: Will it ever be able to prove that the software was released under GNU/GPL and therefore the company can't do what it is doing? BLiS loses all the work it has done and someone else will get the fruits. Is releasing his software under GNU/GPL in any way beneficial to BLiS?



firewall, I have read that thread even earlier. In very short, there you have give the main source of revenue for freedomware as
1. Customisation
2. AMC/Support/Service
3. Telephone Support (per call/per min)
4. Training Classes

Will any of these, except customisation, work in the given example? If the PIM is so complicated that its needs training or support, BLiS won't find customers. Secondly, should it deliberately not add all the features so that it can offer feature addition (or customisation) at a cost?


----------



## GNUrag (Sep 22, 2004)

Hello tuxfan... many people and you have posted such long comments, and i'm not in a position to read everything... however quickly i'd make some points of mine...

First of all... let me tell you all, tuxfan is a professional advocate... and it seems to me that he has read that book from cover to cover as if it were some law-book on indian penal code!!! what say tuxfan ????

The idea of Free Software, is a bit broader one... it not only covers the source code of a particular technology, but it also includes Open Standards, Freedom of Knowledge (what you read about the Free Encyclopedia * Wikipedia * )

See, the most important of all, Open Standards if the thing that we should go in for... even if that means we have to pay someone... but if you are locked with a particular format/technology/solution, then you are at the mercy of that company... what if it goes into an arm twisting strategy ?

Lets take the best of the best example of open standards... The TCP/IP... i.e. The * World wide web *.... the TCP/IP network protocols and the entire networking stack was written by the guys at Berkeley University... That's why we all are here on this forum discussing on various topics.... Berleley has long been a giant writing all the Free Software and distributing them... IBM and other giants also had their own standards, but their technology never made it....

maybe I'll add more .... when i get to sit on broadband .... rightnow on telephone...


----------



## BONZI (Sep 23, 2004)

> Lets take the best of the best example of open standards... The TCP/IP... i.e. The World wide web .... the TCP/IP network protocols and the entire networking stack was written by the guys at Berkeley University... That's why we all are here on this forum discussing on various topics.... Berleley has long been a giant writing all the Free Software and distributing them... IBM and other giants also had their own standards, but their technology never made it....



Nice info 




> here the issue is not whther the software shuld be made free to all.. but the real issue is to make the software code free so that target users can see what their beloved program is made.. but while giving out the code with the software it doesnt mean that the programmer is going empty handed.. the code needs to be given so that end users can make the software work as they require it..



Youre right. I'm not of the opinion that softwares under FSF should be made free. In the case of linux we only have a few distros that are free. The programmer must get paid for what he does (otherwise how is he gonna live?) . Copyright is actually taking away the rights of the users. making a software open dosent mean that you cannot make money out of it. If an individual who has no background on programming gets the source what is he gonna do with it. Even if it is given to a commercial business will that company be compiling and using it without proper guarentee of security. Actually redhat is making a lot of money this way.

FSF has helped programmers in a big way because otherwise we would have only access to toy softwares (like tic tac toe). Then if you say it will not be a success then I wont agree with you because just remember the whole of the linux started with a kernel. Gut now thousands are ppl are onto it making it better and better.

ALL LONG POSTS


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 23, 2004)

This is the same thing I said months ago in that Windows Vs unix thread where me & tuxfan had a battle

If a software is free & open source, how o U think  the compony will make the money, they won't be able to licence it or sell, their idea & code will be free & no profit


----------



## tuxfan (Sep 23, 2004)

gxsaurav said:
			
		

> This is the same thing I said months ago in that Windows Vs unix thread where me & tuxfan had a battle


Battle!!  Call it arguments  Anyway, I don't even remember that and I am somewhat more enlightened on the topic now, thanks to GNUrag's book. So raised some doubts that I had after reading it.



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> See, the most important of all, Open Standards if the thing that we should go in for... even if that means we have to pay someone... but if you are locked with a particular format/technology/solution, then you are at the mercy of that company... what if it goes into an arm twisting strategy ?


 For a user, Open Standards are the best thing to do. They must use that as much as they can. No doubt about it. But my concern is for the programmer. You yourself are an upcoming IT professional. Tell me where will you make more money. In releasing all your software as Free (freedomware) software or keeping it closed source and proprietory? If you keep thinking about the society and release all the software as free, how will make a living? Will any of the Free Software advocate/extremists come and look after you in your old age? At that time what will help you is the money that you have.



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> and it seems to me that he has read that book from cover to cover


 Yes I have done that  Once I take up a thing in my hand, I do it whole-heartedly. I have not only read it, but also analysed it mentally from different perspective. Stallman comes across as a great visionary. His writings can't be read like a novel. Needs analysis for better understanding. That is why it took me so long to read it 



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> maybe I'll add more .... when i get to sit on broadband .... rightnow on telephone


Then do what I do. Save the page and disconnect. Read it at your own time, write your post, connect and post. 



			
				BONZI said:
			
		

> In the case of linux we only have a few distros that are free


But once you pay for a copy, you can legally make as many copies as you want!! That to without paying the original company!! That is what is called "co-operation" by Stallman.


----------



## GNUrag (Sep 23, 2004)

tuxfan said:
			
		

> For a user, Open Standards are the best thing to do. They must use that as much as they can. No doubt about it. But my concern is for the programmer.


Allright... Let me tell you one thing... Free Software movement has been there for two decades right... we've seen millions of programmers helping build their community right .... Since the development is already going on with such a pace then why is there any reason to worry... 

Let me tell you.... the biggest contribution that comes to this society is in the form of university programmers and students instead of individual programmers.... As i said, students of berkeley, MIT, and others have been the biggest contributors... most of the people are not full time programmers and have other things to do in life... 

Anyways dont go to America for all those examples... i'll give you some from india also... Karunakar G. who has been an activist at Bombay LUG... did GNOME localization for his college project... after his college he got more contracts.... Right now he got an offer from Government of Bhutan to localize GNOME for Bhutanese language also.... Sayamindu ... who was behind the Ankur Bangla Localization is a 12th standard student... Now how do you explain these...

True their are people for whom Money is everything... they might account for 80% ... but the rest 20% of people are still more than willing to share all their creations and work... Those 20% people have been carrying on this revolution so far for past 20 years.... And i think its my responsibility to support them and help my community.... 

You know from where this motivation comes from ? when enthusiasts look back at all the development that has gone .... and because of which they have this excellent usable system in place... they get motivated to contribute their own bit also.... They might not be Free Software programmers for life... but they do contribute their little bit.... Its these little bits that add up to give us this huge collection of Free Software...

And as far as i'm concerned, i'll be joining TIFR for my PhD studies in a few years... i'll be getting research grants and that will cover atleast my next 6 years....



			
				tuxfan said:
			
		

> Yes I have done that  Once I take up a thing in my hand, I do it whole-heartedly. I have not only read it, but also analysed it mentally from different perspective. Stallman comes across as a great visionary. His writings can't be read like a novel.


That's actually a good thing...



			
				tuxfan said:
			
		

> Then do what I do. Save the page and disconnect. Read it at your own time, write your post, connect and post.


No, today i'm at TIFR.... got a broadband here... but that's what i do otherwise...



			
				BONZI said:
			
		

> In the case of linux we only have a few distros that are free


Well, the problem is that, all the biggies like Redhat, Novell etc, are churning out their own distributions that contain a mix of Free and Proprietary software... nothing wrong with it... they just want to aim the CEOs and bosses... We can be better off with a Debian GNU/Linux or Debian GNU/Hurd distro.... its endorsed unofficially by FSF also....


----------



## tuxfan (Sep 24, 2004)

Saved the post, will read it, will come re-connect once I have typed out my reply  I am on dial up. Still!!


----------



## goobimama (Sep 24, 2004)

I know I'm spoiling the whole thread and link, but do check out firefox, its a very good "open source" browser breaking the "not open source" browsers aiss. So you see the difference. Open source is better than Money$oft. Its better for the people at least.


----------



## tuxfan (Sep 24, 2004)

> I know I'm spoiling the whole thread and link, but do check out firefox, its a very good "open source" browser breaking the "not open source" browsers aiss. So you see the difference. Open source is better than Money$oft. Its better for the people at least.


 :roll: Anyway, I use Firefox and many other here too  Anyway, lets restrict the discussion to the topic at hand. Shall talk about browsers later at some more appropriate thread. Right? 

Back to GNUrag's post. As regards Karunakar G and Sayamindu, they must be experts in their fields. They are high level programmers. *But just tell me what about M/s BLiS that I talked about in my example? What happens to people at that level? Can they survive on Freedomware?* I doubt.

And how many people are at the level of these two guys that you mentioned? Very few!! That is what makes them special.





			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> the biggest contribution that comes to this society is in the form of university programmers and students instead of individual programmers.... As i said, students of berkeley, MIT, and others have been the biggest contributors... most of the people are not full time programmers and have other things to do in life...


Exactly!! Thats my point. How can anyone survive on Freedomware alone?




			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> True their are people for whom Money is everything... they might account for 80% ... but the rest 20% of people are still more than willing to share all their creations and work


So only those people for whom money is not important should opt for freedomware? The rest should not!! That means you also agree that you can't make money by making freedomware? If you can't make money out of it, then you have to opt for something that will give you your daily bread and butter (and cake too!!).




			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> all the biggies like Redhat, Novell etc, are churning out their own distributions that contain a mix of Free and Proprietary software... nothing wrong with it


Ahhh!! So you admit that a mix of freedomware and proprietory software is necessary!! Isn't it? 




			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> i'll be getting research grants and that will cover atleast my next 6 years


I don't know the customs in too detail about PhD. But you will be covered up for 6 years by grants. *Would you like to remain dependant on grants for the rest of your life?* Are you sure you will be able to regularly get it? And even if you do get it, are you sure you want them?

See, that is what my point is. Survival and progress in life is not possible if you are into making freedomware only. *The concept is very noble and idealistic, but not practical for programmers*. At least, you can't do it full time. And if you can't do it full time, proprietory software will forever remain, you can't eradicate it completely. There are no free lunches and there will never be.

I would like to hear from Dr. Nagarjun on this. GNUrag, I am asking for a favour form you on this. Please try to arrange for a talk on this topic by Dr. Nagarjun (or some other equally or more efficient speaker and GNU extremist) and let us all hear what he says. I would love to have a Q & A session as well. I would love to have a seminar like we had at Somaiya College. Good speech, good CD and a good lunch


----------



## GNUrag (Sep 24, 2004)

this post has become a talk between only two people... this should have been in General Discussions section.... who moved it here ?


----------



## GNUrag (Sep 26, 2004)

Allright Ashish bhai, tell me one more thing.... how many people do you know are earning their livelihood through making proprietary software ..... agreed, a good job is must if you care for your future, and most importantly, you want to propose your sweet heart.... 

but then, there's no one who is earning whole life making freedom ware or proprietary ware.... people can always make Free Software while being employed somewhere else .... a single individual can't succeed making proprietary software also....


----------



## tuxfan (Sep 27, 2004)

> how many people do you know are earning their livelihood through making proprietary software
> ....
> a single individual can't succeed making proprietary software also


 I know of three people personally. They earn their livelihood not only be software but also some hardware and other ancilliary things. But software surely is one major part of it!! One of them is just waiting for his final product launch. As soon as it is ready, he would concentrate more on selling it and plans to reduce the time given to other parts.



> people can always make Free Software while being employed somewhere else


So you can't do it full time!! You require a passion towards to cause to make you do it. So it surely is not a financially viable thing. That is what I have been saying from post 1 on this topic!

I was actually expecting some heated arguments on this from you and firewall because you are two most known GNU fanatics here 



> his should have been in General Discussions section.... who moved it here ?


:roll: I even sent a private message to an admin asking about it. But haven't received any reply. This thread surely belongs to the general discussion and not software. We are not talking about software, only software ideologies.


----------



## GNUrag (Sep 27, 2004)

Just as you gave examples of ur friends, i also gave you examples of my friends, who are making money with Free Software.... 

However good news is that, *Richard Stallman* himself is going to come to India in feb next year.... He'll be holding a public speech, but we have to finalize that later... maybe we can discuss this topic with him... i'll let you know about that....

even i sent a PM to Raaabo to move this topic, he replied in negative... you know man, He almost never agrees with almost anyone... he's just like that only....


----------



## tuxfan (Sep 27, 2004)

> maybe we can discuss this topic with him... i'll let you know about that....


Please do that. I would want to hear from him on this, specifically on my concerns.



> Just as you gave examples of ur friends, i also gave you examples of my friends, who are making money with Free Software....


Actually, I would love to make money out of free software. But don't know how. That is why this thread. But I must say I am not satisfied. I don't want to rely on Donations, etc. :roll:

You sent a PM requesting a move!! I only sent a PM to digitadmin asking for logical reasons on moving. I haven't received a reply so far.


----------



## GNUrag (Sep 27, 2004)

tuxfan said:
			
		

> You sent a PM requesting a move!!


No, i sent PM to Raaabo requesting him to re-move this topic to General section ... dont know who moved it here.... must be batty...


----------



## it_waaznt_me (Sep 28, 2004)

Hey ... Lemme say my words man ... I aint getting enough time to post these days  ...

So .. I moved this topic here because I saw it was a very nice discussion taking place ..It was related to software ( software discussion can include software ideology too .. whatever ..) .. I didnt wanted this discussion to die in the pile of useless threads there in General Disscussion section. Thats why I moved it here .. You can see for yourself .. In GD section if any thread hasnt got a post for just  one day , it will move to 3rd page .. now imagine any new member coming here and not finding this discussion ... 
Here in Software Discussion, this thread will be in 1st page for atleast  5 or 6 days ....
That was all I thought ..
But if you still need .. I can move it again ...


----------



## tuxfan (Sep 28, 2004)

No, let it remain where it is. Thank you for your input. I only wanted to know the reasons . You have a point. But as you can see, there isn't any more inputs on this topic. A few people posted initially and then it has boiled down to only two of us  I was expecting some good debate.

How about some more expereinced people from Digit Editorial Team giving their thoughts on this? Their experience could enlighten us. Please see if you can have that done.  Thanks again.


----------



## DKant (Oct 1, 2004)

> A few people posted initially and then it has boiled down to only two of us  I was expecting some good debate.



Well there were several ppl sitting on the fence..like meself. Unfortunately a thread's popularity isn't judged by the no. of ppl reading it, but by the no. of ppl replying to it..though it's not a defective barometer per se.

And I've got nothing to say..u two have put up all the possible points urself!!


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 2, 2004)

> Unfortunately a thread's popularity isn't judged by the no. of ppl reading it, but by the no. of ppl replying to it..though it's not a defective barometer per se


Who cares about the popularity of a thread? I am more concerned with more view points that could give me some more food for thought. 



> And I've got nothing to say..u two have put up all the possible points urself!!


Oh! So is that all on this topic. I thought there could be lot more arguments on this


----------



## DKant (Oct 2, 2004)

> Oh! So is that all on this topic. I thought there could be lot more arguments on this



Yes there could. On the ideology..well there seems to be a convergence of ideas here...towards the fact that "Free" (as in light on the pockets) software is not a viable option. What u need is 'reasonably priced software' (as has been said already). So I think  we need to start discussing viable solutions here...whaddya say  

Not many ppl seem to have read this part of my first post in this thread..atleast noone responded to it.



> Thirdly, since we have agreed (  ) that capitalism is the way to go, most certainly..I must be paid for my work. However, the trick lies in passing on this cost in an efficient manner to the user. To do this one must clearly identify the target group. If my program will help lay users use computers in an efficient way, then it must be priced accordingly. If the lay user wouldn't need, and probably not know to use certain power features (which naturally required a lot more effort to code), I can chop off these features without any harm to anyone. Though this is not something we like, but it is inevitable. Can you get a Chevrolet Optra for 1 lac? Obviously not. We object to high priced software, primarily because it takes nothing to create another copy. On the other hand, you'll need a lot of effort and money to create a replica of an Optra, that performs as well!!
> 
> Therefore, the corporate market, which can pay adequately for the services it uses, must act as the sponge for absorbing the impact that reducing the prices in the lay-user segment would have.
> 
> ...



That's about "Free" (as in light on the pockets) software. But we also need to discuss how much "Free" (as in freely viewable code) and "Free" (as in light on pockets) are inter-related with each other. I know tuxfan/anurag made a few points about this, but I don't remember what exactly they were..and I can't locate them as well. 

The main problem here is..that unlike 'hard' ware (like say..cars), software can be easily copied, modified, and launched as a totally new product with hardly any additional cost and effort..and all this can be done legally if it's free (as in free code) software...thus I would be writing the code (at least in part) for a product that could even compete with the original!! That's obviously finanacially unviable!!

So let's see how the model suggested in that post of mine can accomodate this new problem. Pretty simple..



> I extend the concept to inlcude the author of the program.  So apart from the signature of the "Company that made.." the software key would also include the author's own signature. So, if I just want to modify the code slightly so as to optimise performance on my PC etc. I am free to do it. However, if I want to gain commercial benefit out of it, while distributing the code..I'll have to inform the company. Through the company, the original author can also be informed about the new product based on _his/her_ original code. Subsequently, the commercial benefit derived out of the new product, would be distributed between the company, the original author and the modder  !! The only disadvantage would be that derivatives of the original program will be costlier than the original one. But since the target would be volume and not profit per copy, this effect can be suitably nullified.



This way Stallman could have become rich enough to lead a comfortable life, while sticking to his ideal of making computer software financially and "code"ically available to all. Of course he wld still have got nowhere near Bill Gates!!  But who wants so much money anyway? 

Any other suggestions?


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 3, 2004)

DKant said:
			
		

> The main problem here is..that unlike 'hard' ware (like say..cars), software can be easily copied, modified, and launched as a totally new product with hardly any additional cost and effort..and all this can be done legally if it's free (as in free code) software...



Exactly.... Software code is essentially knowledge... and one cannot make knowledge proprietary... One can always sell his free software... and not depend upon donations alone... 

I'm waiting for inputs from tuxfan...


----------



## DKant (Oct 3, 2004)

> One can always sell his free software... and not depend upon donations alone...



True..but what if a competing product was launched with only a few bells and whistles added to the original code? The software improves but the man who wrote the original code suffers financially..unless you have a proper regulatory/monitoring mechanism that is, which will allow some of this money to be redirected to the "man who wrote the original".


----------



## sreevirus (Oct 3, 2004)

sorry for chipping in but i'm with DKant. why wud i want some1 to take advantage of something i have made? if i make a good software and release it as an open source or free software, can it make up for my labour? if i release it as a free/open source s/w, i'll be seeing some1 else will just use the original code, add some eyecandy and ppl will go for that...and what will i get? oh yeah, only the credit that I am the original creator of the software. 
if i make an open source s/w and sell it, i may be able to make some gains at first, but will i be able to later when someone else uses MY CODES to make money? it aint viable. its like those times when u made something and ur friend gets all the credit for adding a few little things.
i'm saying this coz Linus Torvalds made the original linux kernel and l8r corporations like RedHat, SuSE, etc are makin millions out of that. Torvalds did a gr8 thing by releasing the source, but others wont be as willing to disclose the source of their creations....coz ppl wud luv more to be like Bill Gate$ than to get nothing but mere credit for their creations.
the concept of open source is good, but i wud prefer that people wud BUY the source for MONEY.

if i make a new hardware for my PC and realize that hardware can be very useful for others too, i'll first patent that hardware. or else if i announce HOW i made the hardware, the next thing i'll know will be some company is making that hardware and reaping benefits....now who wud want that to happen ??...else if i patent that hardware and reserve rights, i'll ofcourse get a lil benefit for my ideas from those companies.

SOCIALISM IS DEAD...CAPITALISM RULEZ


----------



## DKant (Oct 4, 2004)

Seems no1 read my suggestions..the discussion is continuing only on the ideology front.


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 4, 2004)

@DKant: Oh relax mate. I have read your posts in full, but by the time I came here, I forgot a lot of it, because I read a few more posts  But I remember that while I was reading it, the words "exactly" slipped out of my mouth a number of times 



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> Software code is essentially knowledge... and one cannot make knowledge proprietary


 I disagree. Software becomes knowledge only after I tell others how I made it. There are things called *trade secrets*. Every business has it and so does software business. I cannot reap enough benefits out of my efforts if I let everyone freely copy it. But trade secrets in software seems harmful to the end user, so what DKant said earlier seems more practical. Here it is


			
				DKant said:
			
		

> So, if I just want to modify the code slightly so as to optimise performance on my PC etc. I am free to do it. However, if I want to gain commercial benefit out of it, while distributing the code..I'll have to inform the company. Through the company, the original author can also be informed about the new product based on his/her original code. Subsequently, the commercial benefit derived out of the new product, would be distributed between the company, the original author






			
				DKant said:
			
		

> True..but what if a competing product was launched with only a few bells and whistles added to the original code? The software improves but the man who wrote the original code suffers financially..unless you have a proper regulatory/monitoring mechanism that is, which will allow some of this money to be redirected to the "man who wrote the original".


I agree entirely. This is what my apprehension has been on reading the book and hence the thread. I am glad I started it.



			
				sreevirus said:
			
		

> f i make an open source s/w and sell it, i may be able to make some gains at first, but will i be able to later when someone else uses MY CODES to make money? it aint viable.
> ......
> ......
> if i make a new hardware for my PC and realize that hardware can be very useful for others too, i'll first patent that hardware. or else if i announce HOW i made the hardware, the next thing i'll know will be some company is making that hardware and reaping benefits....now who wud want that to happen ??


I once again agree. Freedomware sounds financially unviable.


----------



## icecoolz (Oct 5, 2004)

I wont waste time quoting whats been written and try to explain what I meant. I'll also try to keep it short 

1) Java example I gave long back, is the classic example I wanted to use for the bigger cos to build a framework for building ur own programs. JDk essentially bundles the src of the java program language as well. And  it can be modified as seen fit. So you have a framework but are not restricted by the framework.

2) Frameworks are the essential need for any programmer. We all know of general programming practices which have come into existence becos of the good frameworks which a few people identified and put in place. So I say money will be in building ur solutions using the framework. 

3) everyone has good ideas....few seldom succeed. Simply becos ideas alone arent enough for success. They form the core. You need luck and a lot of bravery and faith in ur idea. And face it...we all need money to get things working. VC funding doesnt come easy. Nor do good ideas.


----------



## sujithtom (Oct 5, 2004)

I agree with you Tuxfan!!


----------



## sujithtom (Oct 5, 2004)

Well Tux Fan, I think I am late but:
I fully support what you are saying. I asked the same question to many but got no satisfactory answer.

If Linux wins the battle will programers have to sell T-shirts and Donations for survival?

What will happen if gaint companies stop giving donations?

Any way IBM and such company is providing dodnations because they hate Microsoft. If the proce of Software rises naturally price of Hardware decreses. If Microsoft falls, Softwares will be mostly free or of nominal charge so Hardware prices will Shot up...
Onece Microsoft falls, gaint companies will stop giving donatations..


----------



## sujithtom (Oct 5, 2004)

Any way when Longhorn is released, it will sound the death knell of Linux as it can run Linux softwares also in it (read in Microsoft site).


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 5, 2004)

Ashish bhai, Your query is right and somewhere even i agree with it... But the fact is that there are lots of Free Software already developed and tonnes of other in the making... And no matter what conclusion we all draw, A lot of Free Software for varied purposes will be made.... how does one explain this ???

I haven't personally seen any individual programmer making his entire career entirely upon Free Software... Except a few people that i know... 

This sunday. 10th Oct, we'll be meeting for next LUG meet... we can take up this issue with Dr. Nagarjuna, .... will see you there...



			
				icecoolz said:
			
		

> 2) Frameworks are the essential need for any programmer. We all know of general programming practices which have come into existence becos of the good frameworks which a few people identified and put in place.



Exactly .... Frameworks and Open Standards are THE MOST Essential principles to be followed in Software development .... and i can go on pages writing about this if anyone does no agree on this point...



			
				sujithtom said:
			
		

> Any way when Longhorn is released, it will sound the death knell of Linux as it can run Linux softwares also in it



Free Software based on GNU/Linux platform already works on Windows and there are no issues whatsoever by which anyone can prevent you from not using them on windows. Entire debate that we're working on is about Free Software and Open Standards...



			
				sujithtom said:
			
		

> Any way IBM and such company is providing dodnations because they hate Microsoft


Totally True... The only reason why IBM or ORACLE are promoting GNU/Linux is because they want to sell their custom made software that runs on GNU/Linux .... they're not at all concerned about Freedom or Openness...


----------



## DKant (Oct 5, 2004)

Freeware..yeah right we love 'em. So can we build an industry out of that? No! If freeware must survive, it *has* to be on a compromise with proprietary (aka high-priced) software.

And if u don't like that (which is what I think u must be feeling), forget "free", think "reasonably priced" and work for a system that encourages the same.

Freeware will never be able to fulfil Stallman's dream of "software for everybody". It's impossible. We just *CAN'T* build an industry that gives out its products for free. Think rational, think "reasonably priced." We are talking about systemic change here. U can't just dream of all things good when ur thinking at such a practical level.

And it's only with "reasonably priced software" that everybody can start talking/thinking about "looking under the hood of ur s/w" legally. Absolutely *NO* compromise solution b/w free and proprietary software has got room for this..just like now.

Till freeware and proprietary-ware are both alive, freedomware cannot survive for long. Systemic change is imperative.


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 6, 2004)

DKant said:
			
		

> Freeware will never be able to fulfil Stallman's dream of "software for everybody"


Stallman never talks about freeware, he talks about freedomware (as I like to call it). Well, you will understand the difference between the two as soon as you read the book that I will send you 

Question is not of price, question is of free permission to copy, modify and even sell without any benefit accruing to the original writer. I think a MLM (Multi Level Marketing) kind of system could work, but not the total freedom that Stallman is talking about. 



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> And no matter what conclusion we all draw, A lot of Free Software for varied purposes will be made.... how does one explain this


That is because there are people who feel passionately for the cause. But then they must also be doing some other work and not surviving on freedomware alone. I hope I can make it to this meeting on 10th Sunday. You know how difficult it is for me to come on Sundays and this one will be all the more difficult due to some specific circumstances


----------



## girish_b (Oct 7, 2004)

Bill gates says he takes money ti buy bread for his programmers


----------



## casanova (Oct 7, 2004)

Wow, what a sense. I was thinking about free softwares and commercial softwares during day time and at night i saw this topic.

Firstly, what is more powerful the hardware that we see and touch or the software that makes it run.

If people can purchase the hardware which is nothing without the software why can't they purchase the working software. Even after purchasing a car, they purchase accessories for it (just generalising the question), so if they can purchase the accessories without which the car can run why cant they purchase softwares without which the computer cannot run.
It takes sleepless nights and restless days for a programmer to make that software. It happened to me, i have woked up in between my sleeps and then coed that program an went to sleep again.
If a cleaner is paid for that small work, y shouldnt the software developers. The price is to b paid to the developers and what u (all who have posted) say that donations to be given, they can give it for improvements.
Source code to be provided is damn shit. since if some1 gets the source code, he can modify it and sell it back at low rates (forget the money he gave to purchase that soure code, but he doesn't have to develop the logic). Wat if the second person modifies the software a bit and sells it at lower rates that too with improvements.
Who the hell will purchase the base product.
You r stuck on freewares, i think we should even ban sharewares, since the cracks crack this shareware and it no longer is to be purchased.
And instead of letting the user know its qualities after using it with limitations, developers can create videos or screenshots for the software.
Internet is not in each and every household and hence the internet method to register is worse since sometimes it forces an individual to look for cracks. if implemented it would be better even to register on phone as with windows.

Huge softwares are available with software distibutors at every nook and corner.
Small utilities should also be available at outlets since it reduces the risk of mishandling and misusing.

Linus Torvalds said with respect to Bill Gates :: "He couldn't convince me about business and i couldn;t covince him about technolgy." Technology is more implemented by microsoft and those who talk about tech should also know its value and the cost one puts behind developing it.


----------



## DKant (Oct 7, 2004)

GRRRR!!! I had just typed half a page long post and then for some heavenly reason IE decides it must go to sleep.  I just can't delay the browser switch any longer.  Now I have to retype everything.

Neway getting back to the topic.



> Bill gates says he takes money ti buy bread for his programmers



 40bn $ for *BREAD*? Please!



> Question is not of price, question is of free permission to copy, modify and even sell..



The last three imply the first's fallacy.

OK consider this example. Suppose tuxfan works day and night for several weeks and months and releases a nice new 3D Designing tool that beats anything that's come out on the market, but is a little low on, say user-friendliness. Since he's spent a good amount on the hardware (for testing all the functionality in it), he puts a modest price on the s/w so he can atleast recover his costs. Now imagine that some greedy low-level programmer (like DKant) buys a copy of this s/w. He's impressed with the functionality available..but thinks it's a li'l low on userfriendliness (as it actually is). So he adds some bells and whistles (read hotkeys and new command buttons) and now sells off his version (which didn't require a lot of investment) for a much lower price. Since this 'new' product is more user-friendly and is cheaper.. naturally it will be a success in the market. 



> without any benefit accruing to the original writer



Tuxfan believes in this and has accordingly priced his product. However DKant's actions, far from even resulting in any kind of benefit for Tuxfan, are actually causing him financial harm!! 

Is that acceptable?



> I think a MLM (Multi Level Marketing) kind of system could work, but not the total freedom that Stallman is talking about.



Freedomware. Freeware. Think the two are very different? Yes if ur looking at the definition and the idealistic environment in which their operation is visualized. But think about the real world. I have the full right to copy whatever software I buy. After that I could legally redistribute the same code for free! I repeat, *no financial benefit* could be OK if ur really into it, but what about *financial harm*?

Now in an MLM (thanx for giving it a name. I was searching desperately for one  ), while I would still retain my freedom to copy, and modify the code to suit my needs, I would also not be causing any harm to the original author.

An authorization program won't inhibit the programmer's 'creativity' in any way. What it would curb, is financial harm to the original author. That's all.

Guess I need the book desperately    ! And I WILL pay you for that.


----------



## DKant (Oct 7, 2004)

Things change too fast!! Casanova posted when I was still retyping evil my post.   Since the previous post was already pretty long, I thought this was worth a new post:



> if they can purchase the accessories without which the car can run why cant they purchase softwares without which the computer cannot run.





> If a cleaner is paid for that small work, y shouldnt the software developers.



Excellent points. Some of the justifications for an MLM. (Don't agree on the 'small work' part thought. Even a cleaner's job is very demanding. Neway no space for a discussion on that here)



> Source code to be provided is damn since if some1 gets the source code, he can modify it and sell it back at low rates etc.



This roadblock is overcome in MLM.



> Internet is not in each and every household and hence the internet method to register is worse since sometimes it forces an individual to look for cracks.



Good anti-MLM point. But I think if u can go around looking for cracks, u shld be able to take the effort to go to a nearby Net cafe and register ur copy (a tiny registration program can be easily carried around on a floppy). The registration code can be easily copied to the system on which the s/w was installed.



> "He couldn't convince me about business and i couldn't covince him about technology."



That's exactly what this thread is all about! It summarizes the fundamental contradiction at work here! The respective ideologies of Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates are mutually incompatible, meaning "Good Technology" and "Freedom" can't translate into "Good Business" with either of the ideologies, if implemented in their respective 'pure' forms. What we need therefore is an evolved model, that walks the 'middle' path...of "reasonably priced software" (i.e. freedomware and not freeware) which could easily translate to an MLM based system (thanx for the quote, Casanova  ) 

I know I've repeated a lot of points here from my previous posts, but I had to point out the resonance!


----------



## casanova (Oct 8, 2004)

Ok so one should carry the tiny registration program in a floppy, wat if starts to check if the program is running on the current machine (i m in a netcafe and the program is in my room). I dont know exactly bout it but recently when i was downloading windows media player 10 it refused since the netcafe was running windows 98 and the download was supposed to be for winXP. if downloads suffer which is nothing but just copying the executable from the origin to some other place, how come the registration will succeed. Software developers are on a high in many countries especially in India, so y not host their software products in cities (atleast metropolitians) if not in noos and corner. Pirated versions are available though in every corners and they do sell. Piracy leads to piracy. let me clarify with an example I purchased a pirated version of a copyrighted software say Oracle for Rs100 (Actual price is 1 lakh rounding off). i installed it and passed it out to DKant and then to TuxFan and the list continued. Even then the pirated CD's are sold in hundreds of quantities. If piracy is banned i cant pass the cd to DKant and... so the units sold should rise since Dkant needs it so he has to purchase it. Orcale is a huge software priced heavily but not all use it. Say WinAmp pro (since winamp is freeware) is used by every pc user (if not pro atleast the basic) so the units will be sold in lakhs then y to host it on sites and waste the CPU time in uploading and downloading the software.{ This topic i have started but as i m going on i m realising new and new points but getting nervous with this piracy i hope u understand wat i want to convince you. } so if the s/w is available, one can purchase it. Small utilities cost hardly $50 so its not that tough. Also small s/w can be bundled with h/w (OEMs). Nero got publicity from OEMs itself. Hardware is hardly pirated so instead of giving freewares or sharewares they can be given as OEMs. 
Small utilities can be bundled with other small utilities and can be sold as groups. In this way the end user can get a group of utilities and even piracy can be stopped. Downloading these utilities accounts to half the price (not sure but if one rates Time is money then i think it goes more). Audio casettes and ACDS are available and even in case of music piracy and free music offered on radios they go well And I bet the softwares should also. By the way doing anything the copyrighted way is ease of mind.
Next point i have posted as a new post since these points have nothing in common


----------



## casanova (Oct 8, 2004)

Linux built by Torvalds, i dont know much bout him but RedHat sells Linux a little modified for Rs1200/-. And here they r not charging for the little effort they put in modifying th OS but they charge for The Cd, the pckaging, the manual (i bet no1 reads it) and to pay a lil share to the merchandiser. So this is a laugh on freewares and opensource.
So u wish to have rights for the thing u purchased. Ok if you purchase an airline ticket do you uproot the seat and take it along with u. No.
Do u resell the ticket after u reach ur destination.
No
So y do you wish this with softwares.
Programmers always ask for improvements. So u can give him the changes u wish and he will modify it and give it to u at a fee, afterall he has worked after it.


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 8, 2004)

The quote of Linus summarises the whole point in minimuj words!! Freedomware doesn't make good business sense!!



			
				DKant said:
			
		

> Suppose tuxfan works day and night for several weeks and months and releases a nice new 3D Designing tool that beats anything that's come out on the market


Wow! I wish I could do that   :roll:

But the points that you raised there are just the right ones. You seem to have expressed my thoughts in your words  Allowing redistribution with or without modification just destroys the programmer in the long run. He may even lose motivation to work harder 



			
				DKant said:
			
		

> Guess I need the book desperately


Contact your dad, must have already reached him 



			
				casanova said:
			
		

> Ok so one should carry the tiny registration program in a floppy, wat if starts to check if the program is running on the current machine


Thats just an example. Don't take it too seriously mate. There could be some more practical way of doing things. But that is not the point here. Right? 



			
				casanova said:
			
		

> if you purchase an airline ticket do you uproot the seat and take it along with u. No.
> Do u resell the ticket after u reach ur destination.
> No


  Quite funny comparisons. But not entirely applicable though.

BTW, it feels so better to have more people coming forward to put their arguements on this topic. I requested the new moderator (batty as he is known) to invite some more knowlegerable people from Digit to give their views on the topic. But no one has come :roll:


----------



## DKant (Oct 8, 2004)

> DKant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He told me about ur call..he hasn't got the book yet...or maybe he'll call up later. 

Getting back to Casanova's concerns:



> Ok so one should carry the tiny registration program in a floppy, wat if starts to check if the program is running on the current machine (i m in a netcafe and the program is in my room).



That was just an example..yes. But it was in fact based on what I had to do a coupla months back when my Net connection went down and I had to register my trial copy of Acid Xpress. All I had to do was to carry the registry entries file (or maybe it was a profile file...don't remember exactly) to the cafe, update it (hardly took a few seconds), come back and copy it to the right location (guided on all along by the readme). Didn't feel like too much of an effort to me. 



> I dont know exactly bout it but recently when i was downloading windows media player 10 it refused since the netcafe was running windows 98 and the download was supposed to be for winXP.



Who's talking about WINDOWS????  

Neway..WMP is one of MS's homegrown (read 'monopoly') programs that tie up pretty closely with ur OS. So if that d'load ur talking about was a part of the setup process (like u run the setup and the Wizard starts to download the required files) then the process was aborted when the Installation part began..or maybe MS just wanted to save u the trouble of finding out for urself later  Either that or I don't know . But I believe that's an exception. For example, VB2005 works only on Windows 2000 and above. But I was able to download it, and it was only after running the setup (and getting it aborted) that I came to know it was of no use to me.  (since I use 98 ). But we're talking about registration..which is a much simpler process (like the Acid Xpress example) 



> casanova said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly. But I had to point out that the process wouldn't really be as complicated as it is being made out to be...even with this cumbersome (relatively) a system. 



> if you purchase an airline ticket do you uproot the seat and take it along with u. No.
> Do u resell the ticket after u reach ur destination.
> No



Yeah right we don't do anything of that sort ...but then u haven't bought the airline seat. All u've bought is the ticket, which gives u the right to *sit* in the aeroplane at XY location. What u do with the ticket is entirely up to you, however, just as in Freedomware! U can scribble on it. Make beautiful shapes. Even tear it to pieces (if ur ready to face the consequences that is.  Just like formatting all ur drive/deleting the software  ). But u *can't* resell it. For 1 simple reason...noone's gonna buy a used ticket . If it hasn't been used however, what ur doing is plain illegal, and can be detected easily if there's a proper *identification mechanism* in place. That's THE primary concern regarding Freedomware...identifying and distinguishing one copy from the other..a process that is simplified by means of using registration codes...as in MLM!! 

Remember what we're talking about is FREEDOMWARE! And not FREEWARE. They are not very distinct in the current business/software models, and that's exactly why we're talking about a new system that could accomodate both the user's freedom and the programmer's financial health. 

BTW thanx again for the example Casanova. It was simplistic ,yes,(no offense  )...but it helps in 'concretising' the concepts (of Freedomware and all) 

OK now that the conceptual part has been dealt with, can we get back to the core topic? Any more inputs on that? (MLM etc.)


----------



## casanova (Oct 9, 2004)

thats what i wanted to convince.
in the example of the airlines we are buying a ticket and not the seat
while in the case of softwares,we r purchasing a software (registration) and not the brains behind it


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 10, 2004)

Such long posts... can't read em all... our central issue is that of a programmer who is willing to make Free Software ... and how he can fund himself for the rest of his life without depending upon donations alone... 

We all agree that a programmer today, is more than willing to write code and indulge in varied projects just for the sake of doing it... This Free Software movement is being carried on by voluntary software programmers who are willing to give a small portion of their time... 

as for piracy issues raised by casanova, i must say, piracy will be rampant till the software houses will continue their stubborn atitudes of making proprietary technologies... of they stress more on Open Standards, then any other vendor can also make a comparable software adhering to that Open Standard, thereby increasing Competition, and minimising Piracy...

And i still dont understand about this MLM issue...

as for that airlines thing... Dkant has explained it already , Its just a service that they are selling and not the plane itself... and a ticket is a proof that you paid for that service...


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 10, 2004)

GNUrag said:
			
		

> i must say, piracy will be rampant till the software houses will continue their stubborn atitudes of making proprietary technologies


I feel propritory software will also remain a big part of software industry till a good enough revenue model emerge for freedomware!!

As for MLM logic, the thing is that if I make a distro of GNU/Linux and sell it, I don't pay anything to Linus or Stallman. But in MLM I do that, I have to pay them.

Taking it a little further. I am using PCQ Linux 2004, which is based on Fedora Core 1 which has applications from GNU and kernel from Linus. Now when I pay PCQ, they will have to share revenue with Red Hat Inc. RH Inc in turn will have to share it with Stallman and Linus. The pyramid that way goes on.


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 11, 2004)

tuxfan said:
			
		

> I feel propritory software will also remain a big part of software industry till a good enough revenue model emerge for freedomware!!


As of now, we dont have a revenue model for Free Software developers.... and still we are seeing so much activity.... and i doubt some revenue model can come in place.... 

Proprietary software model might be good, but the fact is that Free Software and Open Standards model has certain inherent advantages.... 

In my opinion... A project like internal auditing/financing project might be better off a closed one , and there's no point in opening up sources..... but if a company decides to make a project like.... say a Web Server... then its the FreedomWare version that most people(read companies) will opt in for.... since it has trust of a millions of people.... 



			
				tuxfan said:
			
		

> As for MLM logic, the thing is that if I make a distro of
> ....
> ....
> But in MLM I do that, I have to pay them.



allright, i now understand MLM a lil bit, but i wonder how this can be implemented ...


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 12, 2004)

GNUrag said:
			
		

> As of now, we dont have a revenue model for Free Software developers.... and still we are seeing so much activity.... and i doubt some revenue model can come in place....


That is what I have been saying since the first post. There is no revenue model. A software company can't rely on donations, sale of t-shirts, CDs, etc. to survive. In that respect, this theory seems somewhat flawed, unfortunately  Open Standards model may have inherent advantages, but mainly to users not to programmers 



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> but if a company decides to make a project like.... say a Web Server... then its the FreedomWare version that most people(read companies) will opt in for.... since it has trust of a millions of people....


I repeat myself once again. You are here talking from a user's perspective. I have already said, freedomware is great for users. But in spite of getting millions of users who trust its software, what does the company who makes it get? Hardly anything in monetary terms!! 

As regards MLM like structure, this is just an alternative which looks better than the present scenario. Implementation is next step and needs the minds and efforts of specialists. I (and most other here) don't have enough firepower on this topic. But for this to happen, people must first realise the absence of a good revenue model in freedomware. Only then will there be some progress in that direction.


----------



## icecoolz (Oct 12, 2004)

Ok se  frameworks are needed for any further development to happen. Now like I had pointed out earlier frameworks didnt come into existence out of thin air. It was put into existence by a bunch of people who were programmers in their life and decided to pen down the common things they noticed in their career. They didnt collectively decide to make the framework proprietary. They very well could have. And we all can imagine as to what the consequences of that could have been. Even today the programmers use these existing frameworks to build their necessary softwares. So do we ask them to pay royalty to the people who built todays frameworks ? No I think thats how it works. 

Programmers need to stop thinking from a smaller perspective and look at the larger picture. Support is a serious money spinner nowadays. Consider this: 

Oracle Application Server is 5000 dollars compared to the BEA equivalent is something close to 15000 dollars. So where does Oracle hope to make the money from ? support. I know cos I worked with them for more than a year and a half. The whole thing runs on support. 

Open source has become a really viable option for small corporations as well as large ones. IDE's such as IBM's eclipse and Net Beans have been implemted in many corporations. Its cut costs by 30% !! I predict more and more movement to the open source market.


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 13, 2004)

icecoolz said:
			
		

> Programmers need to stop thinking from a smaller perspective and look at the larger picture. Support is a serious money spinner nowadays. Consider this:



Exactly, support and donations are the only money earning routes possible.... Here we are concerned about a small time individual programmer.... Big companies can be operated by selling Free Software and Support but individual peogrammer cannot survivr like this...


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 14, 2004)

@ icecoolz : GNUrag has just summarised the crux of this thread in 3 simple lines. Selling support is not a panachea for survival in case of small time programmers. If freedomware is the only way to go, then they should either shut shop or join a big company. If these are the only two options, then it surely curbs enterprenureship instincts  Well, I hope we as a country don't want that to happen.

If besides support, donations is the only other thing that brings revenue, I don't think I will be interested :roll: I was (and I am) very impressed by the ideology, but for me (and many others) it seems financially unviable


----------



## icecoolz (Oct 15, 2004)

tuxfan & GNURag : 

Your points are valid. I for one do not think on the smaller scale though. Linus Torvald certainly didn't else the whole concept of open-source would never come into the picture. I think we need to rethink when we say enterpreuership (pardon my spelling!!) If we think on a smaller scale then  go in for the several routes of which doesnt have to be open source. There is plenty of other alternatives available. 

The open source is model is built with main focus on the enthusiasts who wish to program and want to be scrutinized for better ideas and for the colgromates. 

One thing, as of today there doesnt exist anywhere "reasonable model' of pricing anywhere. The more expensive you make you software the more the hackers that contribute to its exposure. And the smaller softwares usually dont get the recognition that they want and hence cease to exist. If smaller grade programmers want to build their own softwares and get paid for it then open source is def not for them....


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 16, 2004)

icecoolz said:
			
		

> I for one do not think on the smaller scale though. Linus Torvald certainly didn't else the whole concept of open-source would never come into the picture.


Yes I agree and therefore we are thankful to him, Stallman and thousands of others for giving us so much.



			
				icecoolz said:
			
		

> If we think on a smaller scale then go in for the several routes of which doesnt have to be open source. There is plenty of other alternatives available.


What alternatives are you talking about? I am interested in knowing them. Please elaborate.


----------



## lywyre (Oct 17, 2004)

if u want programmers who write codes for free (as in freedom) then u cant get any.


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 17, 2004)

lywyre said:
			
		

> if u want programmers who write codes for free (as in freedom) then u cant get any.



Huh... in that you are wrong .... you have atleast two living examples right here.... tuxfan amd me !!!!!!! ........ right tuxfan ?


----------



## it_waaznt_me (Oct 17, 2004)

Count me in too .... 
If you remove the revenue dimension from coding, you will see things clearly ... Make this analogy with posting in this forum ... You post here cauz you wanna discuss your views..  You find people you can help ....  You dont ask money from people to read your posts...

If you create some software that will help someone do some useful thing you'll appreciate improving it ...

Welll.. I dont see coding as my primary occupation ... and thats why I dont see any harm in coding for free ...


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 18, 2004)

> Make this analogy with posting in this forum ... You post here cauz you wanna discuss your views.. You find people you can help .... You dont ask money from people to read your posts...


You are right. But just because you don't get anything from here, you are more likely to move away to greener pastures as soon as you find them.

Before I came here, I was very actively involved in one more forum. There I had more than 2000 posts like you do here. But then after a particular point of time, I found it boring and switched over here where there is more India centric crowd. If I was paid for posting there, I wouldn't have left it. Same thing applied to softwares as well. Some monotony and lack of interest always lurks around the corner.

I agree. Nothing wrong in coding for free. Actually, its a great community service. But then service always comes secondary. Primary intention is to make enough for yourself and if time permits, contribute towards service. You can't survive on free coding. Thats the main point of discussion here.



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> you have at least two living examples right here.... tuxfan amd me !!!!!!! ........ right tuxfan ?


Right. I don't mind coding for free *in my free time* because I have another source of income. I have done it in the time when I wasn't even aware of what is GNU and hadn't even heard of Linux. Windows was in version 3 and DOS was all around  At that time I had made my C code libraries available for free. I was told by a few C and Clipper programers who used it later that it was very useful to them. It gave me lots of satisfaction, but no money  If it would have given me some then, may be I would have made some more libraries or softwares. But I had to think about survival and got hold of some other source of income.


----------



## icecoolz (Oct 18, 2004)

tuxfan said:
			
		

> What alternatives are you talking about? I am interested in knowing them. Please elaborate.



make it proprietary. Build your own software using a non open source (C# say) and sell it. Ofcoruse the problem is the second you deicde to make it proprietary and sell it, it will be cracked in no time. There is no application in todays world which hasnt been cracked. Thats why I believe open source frameworks with proprietary solutions is the way to go.


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 19, 2004)

icecoolz said:
			
		

> open source frameworks with proprietary solutions is the way to go.



I am still not able to understand what you are saying. Please explain what you mean my this. Do you mean to say that I should use freedomware for programming, but then should not release my programs as freedomware?


----------



## icecoolz (Oct 19, 2004)

Open source frameworks gives you the means by which you build the software. I can use open source frameworks to build my own proprietary solution for say the manufacturing industry like an ERP package. Nothing so big but you get the picture. You are using open source framework which give you well devised tools to build ur software. I am not violating any of the opensource laws as I am not making any modifications. I am using it to build software for my own personal use.


----------



## it_waaznt_me (Oct 19, 2004)

I still didnt got it  ... @ icecoolz


----------



## xenkatesh (Oct 21, 2004)

Cool discussion going on here great thread!


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 21, 2004)

I think I have now somewhat understood what icecoolz is saying. For example, *if VB would have been freedomware (or open source)*, we can use it to make softwares. But we can keep our own software proprietory. We need not release it under GNU/GPL because we are not releasing a new modified version of VB.

@ icecoolz : If this is what you mean to say, then you are saying the same thing as I did quite a while ago . Since you use VB (assumption that VB is freedomware or freeware) for making programms, you are a user of VB. For you, as a user, it is fantastic. But when you go out to sell your software made in VB, you become a programmer. At that time, how will you survive if you sell it as freedomware :roll: We seem to have come back to square one. 

One way out could be releasing your software under 2 types of licences like MySQL does. You can use either of them depending on where will you be using your end-product which needs MySQL. But keeping track of whether the right kind of licence is used or not is nearly impossible and once the source is opened, things can never be the same again


----------



## it_waaznt_me (Oct 21, 2004)

Well.. there are many tools around .. Mono... DevCPP ...

(Right now in hurry ..will post afterwards)..


----------



## icecoolz (Oct 21, 2004)

batty, 

those are tools which will allow you to develop ur own software agreed. But the resulting software need not be freeware. It can be something which you can sell. 

tuxfan: 
I agree that survival cannot be possible if freedomware is adopted by small time programmers. However I have been maintaining that open source (or freedomware) is mainly for two cataogires of people. People who love to code and so do it for non-profit and the large organizations who want to concentrate on the frameworks which will give better building blocks as mentioned before. The small time programmers who want to make software can not join the open source movement as it doesnt take them into consideration at the moment. Perhaps that might change in the future. However like my earlier statement, if Linus Torvald thought small.... see what I am getting at...


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 22, 2004)

Agreed, icecoolz. If Linus and Stallman would have thought small, things would have been vastly different. But everyone is not as capable and efficient in programming as these guys. They are one in millions. But I feel, I am not. So need to think about me and others who are also not too good, but are capable of contributing small time.

Actually, software develpment is my hobby, my second career. So far I thought proprietory licences is the only way to go. Then came along Linux and GNUrag gave me a book by Stallman. I was impressed by the ideologies, but couldn't figure out how will that help me financially.

Anyway, after 5 pages of discussion the point remains that freedomware is not for financial gains, especially for small time programmers. I think I can safely draw this this conclusion. I request the admin to close this thread as there doesn't seem any more different ideas coming thru. Thank you all for good, meaningful contribution.


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 24, 2004)

Hey wait ... dont close this thread... 

I think it is not right to start making proprietary programs using a Free Software as its base... Think of the 20 years of development that has gone behind GCC compiler... 

And besides, legally also you cannot make proprietary software.... one of the aims of GPL was to stop free software and work derived from it to become proprietary... If your program is using  GPL libraries of a particular compiler then you cannot make proprietary software out of it... this problem has been addressed to some extent with Lesser GPL licence... but the issue still remains.... why create Non-Free software that depends upon Free Software?

Some resources for you tuxfan... I've been digging around FSF-India mailing list for quite a while to find a reply to your query.... Dec-2003 thread of FSF -India mailing list has already adressed your concerns.... if you have some time and want some food for thought then see the following links.... in this particular month, RMS himself ...had also posted his comments here...

check out:
*mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-December/thread.html

especially the threads with title * Need help on how to respond to insecure CEOs  * and * No warranty is the best warranty for free software  *

I didnt get enough time to dig more but you can do it urself if you have time and interest for that...

[edit]
some more:
*www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/brian.html

read it in your free time...


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 24, 2004)

tuxfan, there's hell lot of discussion that took place in that FSF -India  mailing list regarding the same issue that you started this thread for... give some time to it if you have... I can't read it all... 

ps: do join that mailing list if you can !!! can't read it all...


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 24, 2004)

The links that you gave opens up very long pages. I am too impatinet to read thru so much. Can you please put the crux of it here?

BTW, I have already joined the mailing list. But spam has started coming on that address. :roll: Actually, I created a POP3 account only for LUG mailing list, kept it somewhat abnormal and have not given it to anyone. Still spam has started on that!! There seems to be some leaks thru the mailing list 

Anyway, I am about to start a project for which I would need a custom free software. I wouldn't mind it being released under GNU/GPL. I hope I receive help from LUG and also others. I will make the details known as and when I have made some preparations from my side. At present its all in my mind. Needs to have something more concrete before I tell others about it.



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> legally also you cannot make proprietary software.... one of the aims of GPL was to stop free software and work derived from it to become proprietary... If your program is using GPL libraries of a particular compiler then you cannot make proprietary software out of it


I have not yet gone thru the legalities of it all. But do intend to do it before I actually use GNU/GPL libraries. The day is somewhat far as of now.


----------



## icecoolz (Oct 25, 2004)

GNURag and TUXFAN, 

I am not talking of the libraries released under GNU/GPL licenses. I am talking of the frameworks which exist such as struts and other frameworks. These anyone can use to develop software for their own purposes without needing to expose the source. Otherwise most of the bigger companies would be revealing their source by now but dont since Struts and other frameworks do not requitre you to. I dont see how licensing can come into this. 

tuxfan if you need any help with your application let me know will gladly help!!


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 25, 2004)

icecoolz said:
			
		

> tuxfan if you need any help with your application let me know will gladly help!!


Thank you for your offer. I will surely need all the help that is available and will surely contact you. As of now, I will reveal just one point. It is going to be for kids. But I will ask for contribution after I have applied my mind to it. Can't expect others to work on it till I myself do. Right? 

BTW, please give more details about the frameworks that you mentioned. I am not aware about it/them at all.


----------



## icecoolz (Oct 26, 2004)

Will be glad to help out and since its for kids hey am all for it. Well one of the frameworks I mentioned is struts. Struts is typically used in a 3-tier architecture where it enables you to plugin several components, and also enables you to build a single interface for multiple devices such a Browser, PALM and WAP and so on. I'll get you more information and get back to you. The framework I mentioned is for java by the way.


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 26, 2004)

I am just seggregating some links for you...

 Need help on how to respond to insecure CEOs   
RMS : *mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-December/001301.html
Ramanraj : *mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-December/001294.html

A quote :


			
				RMS said:
			
		

> . Don't worry too much about what they think.  While their help
> is welcome, we must never feel we desperately need it.
> 
> 2. Show them the example of TrollTech and MySQL.
> ...


By the way, there's no way any email addresss can leak from FSF-Friends mailing list.... coz there's nothing like a "leak" from a mailing list.... subscribers email address are kept completely confidential.... and since you haven't posted any message to that list, there's no chance anyone knows about your email address.... see, even i dont know ur email address (mailing list) ....



			
				icecoolz said:
			
		

> I am not talking of the libraries released under GNU/GPL licenses. I am talking of the frameworks which exist such as struts and other frameworks. These anyone can use to develop software for their own purposes without needing to expose the source


See, Struts is a Web Application framework.... And the web application frameworks have a limited usefulness and they can't suit every kind of project.... Desktop applications form a majority, and struts framework doesn't fit anywhere.... It is limited to a browser/palm-pda .... We dont have something like a "framework" for general purpose applications like media players, browsers and the like...

What i mean to say is an application developed for any particular project.... it can be an CRM solution in struts framework also.... but if you are into retail business of ur CRM solution then you should also provide source code also so that your customer does not get locked into you....

As regarding the GPL libraries, If you are using the GNU's C runtime libraries or Qt or GTK libraries then your application is dependent on those libraries and it wont work without them.... According to licence, your application has to be licenced under GPL if this is the case.... GPL says, its done for preventing Free Software from becoming proprietary...


----------



## tuxfan (Oct 27, 2004)

somehwere in 2nd link by GNUrag said:
			
		

> Only with free software, we can even attempt to work without duplication, and this in itself should take us places.


True. Very noble and great for the society in general. But the question here is about how I will earn money by giving out freedomware. Forget about what others do. Show me how I will earn money out of my application.


----------



## icecoolz (Oct 27, 2004)

GNUrag: 

Struts was just an example of a framework as requested by tuxfan. If you need open source frameworks for desktop based application I can provide those too. I havent really looked into them as I dont need them. 

Any website runs applications. so how can you say that the desktop applications form a majority ? The web browser is a single interface to all these applications but they are applications stiil so I dont think Struts can be deamed that limited in its usefulness. U might also wanna check out Oracle's solution called ADF (Active Data Framework) which uses complete wizards and drag and drop to create applications for the web and everything is completely customizable. Ofcourse its not open source since its an Oracle solution but then ADF is based on struts. Give it a try its a sinch to use. Once again I just give it as an example. 


Frameworks were never intended for customer lock down purposes. I have always maintained that! If it uses a framework to build its own application then I can add new components to it but I cannot modify the exisiting components in case of a proprietary solution. So extensibility is available and also reusability but not maintainability. I can keep harping on about frameworks which I seem to be doing neways!! lol!


----------



## GNUrag (Oct 28, 2004)

No no no.... What i was pointing out was that * Web Application Frameworks * dont form a majority.... its the programs like media players and the like (the whole lot of tools bundled with KDE for example) that form a majority.... and as far as i know about Struts, its a Web Application framework..... 

If you know about some such frameworks for Desktop applications then do let me know. I am not aware of them...


----------



## DKant (Nov 2, 2004)

Back to spoil the thread  lol

Neway, so, as GNURag/tuxfan said some posts ago - "after 5 pages we come back to square one". WOW! We have, and so have I. I was sitting pretty smug thinking about MLM and about filling the loopholes in it when I read STallman's book...and I realized MLM itself was one big HOLE!!! 

MLM violates the basic definition of freedom (according to Stallman) : "that I can modify freedomware without giving any kind of royalty to the original author/taking any kind of permission from him." Well MLM seemed forgotten anyway, but if any1 was trying to remember it..well FORGET IT! It was flawed.

And we still don't have any answers on the "small-time programmer's financial crunch" front. 

(Don't know anything about frameworks so I'm keeping my mouth shut on it.  )


----------



## tuxfan (Nov 2, 2004)

DKant said:
			
		

> MLM violates the basic definition of freedom (according to Stallman)


True. MLM doesn't comple with Stallman's ideas. But then even Stallman's idea of free software looks flawed to me.  That is why I am trying to find out some alternative.



			
				DKant said:
			
		

> And we still don't have any answers on the "small-time programmer's financial crunch" front.


----------

