On 20-Jul-2006, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
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.
I find that many audiences believe (with greater or lesser foundation) they personally will never have any occasion to modify software. It's a hard argument to convince them otherwise.
Fortunately, there's an immediate, understandable benefit that comes to every user of free software whether they modify it or not: not that *they personally* can modify the software, but that *anyone* is allowed to.
The analogy of appliances can then be used:
How many of the audience feels they can fix the toaster? How about the refrigerator? How about the microwave oven?
Now, how many people feel they get no benefit from the fact that, if *they* don't want to fix an appliance, they can take it to someone else -- *not* the original manufacturer -- and get it fixed, or even improved? That if enough people want such improvement services, the price for service is kept low by competition?
How would you feel if those appliances could only be fixed by the original manufacturer? How about if you were powerless to get it fixed even if the original manufacturer is in a different country, or doesn't want you as a customer, or has obnoxious repair terms, or has gone out of business?
We enjoy the freedom to take any of our purchased appliances to anyone we choose to get it improved in any way we see fit, at a price and terms we negotiate.
Free software brings that same benefit to software. Proprietary software is like an appliance that can never be fixed, modified or improved by anyone except the original manufacturer.
That's where every user of free software benefits from the "anyone can improve it and redistribute" aspect; and that's exactly what you don't get with proprietary software.