Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org writes:
But now there should be an example for the audience, which shows the advantage of the freedom to modify the software to your own needs.
That freedom, on its own, is not very valuable. So finding a good example will be very hard.
The combination of that freedom, plus the other three freedoms, is very valuable. Maybe it would be better to focus on this aspect.
For example, it's not very important that I can modify Mozilla Firefox. I don't have the time or the ability. Therefore, showing me that I can modify Firefox will not convince me that software freedom is valuable.
I do have the time and ability to make trivial changes to software packages, but many proprietary programs allow users to make trivial modifications (translations, or plug-ins), so this is not the unique value of free software.
The unique value is that everyone can audit, modify, and publish modified versions of everything. Maybe it would be easier to explain this?
Users of Microsoft Windows can probably make some trivial changes, but no one can remove the built-in spyware, no one can remove the needless restrictions, no one can make it obey standards.
Or you could make a diagram of the decision making process of a Firefox developer who is thinking of adding an advertisement for his company to the Firefox sources.
He is free to add that ad to his copy, and he can publish his copy, and he can submit his diff to the Mozilla team, but will it be in the package that I get from Debian? No. Even if the Mozilla team decided to accept his patch (for some strange reason), it still wouldn't be in the version I get. (And if it was, I could start getting my packages from somewhere else, or I could change distro.)
Another idea is to discuss that backdoor that was discovered in InterBase after it was made free software. More information and similar examples: http://lwn.net/Articles/80115/