Hy! i hope i don't bore you, but i have some additional questions to my previous topic "why free". First let me say, that since the last linuxtag i have this great "Free Software - Free Society" t-shirt from the FSFE. Now after i have wear it the last few weaks people often ask me what it means and what the FSF-Europe is. And i have some problem to explain it to normal people. About the FSFE i usually say that it's a organisation which takes care about all aspects of freedom in the digital age, mostly software freedom. I think this is a short and clear statement. Than it comes to Free Software, ok i can explain clear and short what Free Software is with the 4 freedoms. But than mostly it comes the question why is it important and the assumption that it will never work for all areas were software is used. Here i need your help and some short and clear explanations, because i'm struggling if i try to explain it.
Here the three main arguments were i have problems to find the right answere:
1. "Why does i need this freedoms? I have used software for many years and had never the need or idea to modify the software, the software just does the job and thats ok." If i point him to the freedom to share the software with their friend than i just get the answere that he just do it whether the license allows it or not. So he just don't care if it's legal or not.
2. "What is if there is no Free Software who does the job i have to do? Sould i don't do the job with my PC just because the licence of a program is non-free?" I think that's the typical argument of a pragmatist.
3. This is the economy argument. That there is some kind of software who just no one write in the spare time. Either because there is not much personal need for it or because if you don't work in this special area you don't know what exactly is needed. The argument is that for this kind of software you need a company who write it and it's cheaper for the particular customer if the company uses a non-free license and distribute the costs on all costumers than one customer have to order a "special-development" and have to pay the whole development costs.
What would you answere to such statements?
Than i have one more question from the "Free Music License" and GFDL dicussion. It seams that some people accept different kind of freedom for software, technical documentation, privat thoughts, musik,.. But if you make all this distinctions, could you partition the software field too? For example a distinction between functionally software and entertainment software like computer games. Do you think it would be acceptable for entertainment software to just keep the freedom to share the software verbatim with your friend but give the game vendor a monopoly for some time to sell the software? If some people accept this for music with the argument "it's just entertainment", than i think it would be acceptable for computer games and maybe other not that functional and "important for the world" software too.
Thanks! Markus
On 22-Aug-2005, Markus wrote:
i hope i don't bore you, but i have some additional questions to my previous topic "why free". [...] And i have some problem to explain it to normal people.
That's one of the important reasons for this movement. Most people are so accustomed to the proprietary software world and its rules that they find it difficult to imagine something else. Which, unfortunately, puts you at the big disadvantage of trying to teach new concepts to people who aren't necessarily in the mood to learn something new.
Here the three main arguments were i have problems to find the right answere:
- "Why does i need this freedoms? I have used software for many
years and had never the need or idea to modify the software, the software just does the job and thats ok."
To people who obviously never want to modify software for themselves, I find it sufficient to talk in terms of getting the software customised, or repaired, or maintained. People are quite accustomed to the idea that they can call anyone who will offer what they want for servicing their vehicle, or house appliances, or clothes.
If you ask your interlocutor why they don't demand the same from their software -- i.e. to be able to have any skilled third party offer those services at a competitive rate -- that will at least get them to see why the freedom is valuable to them. It's valuable to them that the freedom to modify and redistribute software, without original vendor involvement, be available *to everyone*, not just to them in particular.
If i point him to the freedom to share the software with their friend than i just get the answere that he just do it whether the license allows it or not. So he just don't care if it's legal or not.
You can also point out that the proprietary software he shares will normally have some increasingly restrictive hoops to jump through (registration codes, USB dongles, phone-home registration services, et cetera) which are only necessary because the vendor desperately depends on casual copying to be awkward, and are only legal because of the software license "agreement" that makes them legal. Free software *encourages* sharing, so those kinds of annoyances don't survive.
- "What is if there is no Free Software who does the job i have to
do? Sould i don't do the job with my PC just because the licence of a program is non-free?" I think that's the typical argument of a pragmatist.
If you're trying to encourage people to eschew software that works for them, you're going to have a lot of disappointing conversations that change nonbody's mind. The free software movement attempts to preserve and expand freedoms, and create lots of free software.
It does not attempt to forcibly prevent others from choosing software they want to use. On the other hand since software is generally designed for interacting with other people at some stage, it *does* attempt to ensure others will use software that allows us to choose free software in interacting with them. This is a long way from demanding that others stop using software only because it's not free.
- This is the economy argument. That there is some kind of software
who just no one write in the spare time.
This is not an argument, it's a non sequitur.
Free software is written, and sold, and customised and supported and maintained, for money all day every day. The idea that free software can only be written in "spare time" is ludicrous, and easily defeated by showing the dozens of companies that provide free software and charge handsomely for the privilege.
Either because there is not much personal need for it
This is a strange point to raise. If it's not much needed, why are we mourning its loss? Conversely, if it *is* important, why would we not pay for it to be developed -- just as now?
or because if you don't work in this special area you don't know what exactly is needed.
Again, nothing about free software prevents someone paying for it to be written and distributed and maintained.
The argument is that for this kind of software you need a company who write it and it's cheaper for the particular customer if the company uses a non-free license and distribute the costs on all costumers than one customer have to order a "special-development" and have to pay the whole development costs.
That's a problem for software companies to solve. The fact that they *are* doing exactly what apparently can't be done, seems to put the burden of explanation the other way around.
On 22-Aug-2005, Ben Finney wrote:
On 22-Aug-2005, Markus wrote:
- "What is if there is no Free Software who does the job i have
to do? Sould i don't do the job with my PC just because the licence of a program is non-free?" I think that's the typical argument of a pragmatist.
If you're trying to encourage people to eschew software that works for them, you're going to have a lot of disappointing conversations that change nonbody's mind. The free software movement attempts to preserve and expand freedoms, and create lots of free software.
For the FSF's position on this, via RMS:
URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/use-free-software.html
"Markus" gnufriend@gmx.de wrote:
i hope i don't bore you, but i have some additional questions to my previous topic "why free". [...]
I liked most of Ben's answers, so I'll try not to repeat. I'm glad you're out there explaining this to people. I think you should watch out for words like calling them "normal people" as it both suggests they're conformist and that free software supporters are abnormal.
- "Why does i need this freedoms? I have used software for many years and
had never the need or idea to modify the software, the software just does the job and thats ok."
I'm amazed if he's never found a bug in anything, needing some workaround or losing him some work. Maybe that never made him think "that should be fixed" but that's conditioning for you.
If i point him to the freedom to share the software with their friend than i just get the answere that he just do it whether the license allows it or not. So he just don't care if it's legal or not.
"Don't care was made to care / Don't care was hung / Don't care was put in a pot / And boiled 'til he were done" (English proverb/rhyme)
If the law is there, sooner or later, the law may be enforced, no matter how inconvenient it is. Just look at all the stupidity around music already, with Corrupt Discs, suing p2p users and other ways of attacking customers. Eventually, they'll care, but it may be too late. If software goes that way, through Trusted Computing or however, it will really hurt because of all the places software is now. Better correct it now.
- "What is if there is no Free Software who does the job i have to do?
Sould i don't do the job with my PC just because the licence of a program is non-free?" I think that's the typical argument of a pragmatist.
A pragmatist has no truck with non-free software after the first time they want to do a job and the inability to modify software (or pay someone to modify it) makes their job harder or impossible. Any time you spend learning non-free software is not investment if you can't adapt it or have it adapted. There are a few proprietary software developers in niche fields which respond to every customer and I have less problem with them, but that's still a closed market and you are betting on one firm. A pragmatist who likes bets with odds against you?
- This is the economy argument. That there is some kind of software who
just no one write in the spare time. [...]
So pay them. If there are many customers, form a consortium. It's sustainable, but there's often this fear that the initial development funders pay more than they would in the other model. Why? It seems pretty clear that it's more sustainable if you play it right and that's why people are doing it now.
Non-free development often sees some sort of capital "gambled" on the development in the chance of making enough money from sales later. For customers, they pay less in this model only if there are enough customers who don't join the consortium, or if the gambler loses. If the gambler loses, it depends how they react: hold on to see if they can milk enough money from the next upgrade, or strip assets from the developer to get some return on investment, perhaps?
[...] It seams that some people accept different kind of freedom for software, technical documentation, privat thoughts, musik,.. [...]
Although "accept" is not "like" for even all who "accept". Also, some of the alternatives you mention are not easy with current laws.
Best wishes,
Am Monday, dem 22. Aug 2005 schrieb Markus:
Here i need your help and some short and clear explanations, because i'm struggling if i try to explain it.
You seem to be from germany. There is a good site in german language, which tries to explain free-software to outsiders (your "normal people"): http://www.deshalbfrei.org
- "Why does i need this freedoms? I have used software for many years and
had never the need or idea to modify the software, the software just does the job and thats ok."
I really doubt that they are really so satisfied with their software and never have problems.
If there is a problem with their software, someone should fix it. With free software, that could be any capable programmer. Most probably others have the same problems too. So there will most probably be someone who does it volutarily.
If not, you can search for someone who does it for the lowest price. With proprietary software from, say Microsoft, you could only ask Microsoft, and only them, because it's their property, - and they most probably won't do it for you, or they could ask for any unreasonable price, because there is no copmetitor who could do it. That's the difference.
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 02:52 +0200, Markus wrote:
- "Why does i need this freedoms? I have used software for many years and
had never the need or idea to modify the software, the software just does the job and thats ok."
Maybe answer with: 1. "Why do you need Free Speech? You have lived all your life without making public speeches, have you not?"
... or some variation of it, depending on the person. Just because you don't need to consciously exercise your freedom all the time, doesn't mean you're not exercising it, or even that you may actually need to in the future.
- "What is if there is no Free Software who does the job i have to do?
Sould i don't do the job with my PC just because the licence of a program is non-free?" I think that's the typical argument of a pragmatist.
That's the typical argument of, IMHO, someone who's short-viewed, and not of a pragmatist.
Is it pragmatic to use Windows, and all the troubles it brings with? (security, stability, etc?)
Is it pragmatic to allow spyware? Is it pragmatic to surrender the control of your computer to someone else (DRM)?
If there's no Free Software to do the job you have to do, the easiest path is not doing it all, but the really pragmatic one is to help creating it (for instance, set up bounties).
- This is the economy argument. That there is some kind of software who
just no one write in the spare time. Either because there is not much personal need for it or because if you don't work in this special area you don't know what exactly is needed. The argument is that for this kind of software you need a company who write it and it's cheaper for the particular customer if the company uses a non-free license and distribute the costs on all costumers than one customer have to order a "special-development" and have to pay the whole development costs.
Why, that's easy. Why not paying developers to create that Free Software into existence?
Rui
Rui Miguel Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 02:52 +0200, Markus wrote:
- "Why does i need this freedoms?
Maybe answer with:
- "Why do you need Free Speech?
Or "you benefit from freedom of the press without being a journalist"
- This is the economy argument. That there is some kind of software who
just no one write in the spare time. Either because there is not much personal need for it or because if you don't work in this special area you don't know what exactly is needed. The argument is that for this kind of software you need a company who write it and it's cheaper for the particular customer if the company uses a non-free license and distribute the costs on all costumers than one customer have to order a "special-development" and have to pay the whole development costs.
Why, that's easy. Why not paying developers to create that Free Software into existence?
I don't think that addresses the problem. The economic argument is about the situation when there's no capable free software and it's financially cheaper to buy a license for proprietary software instead of paying for a free software replacement to be written.
The cost can be eased by sharing the cost with others that want the software. But that mightn't be enough for some.
I think the way to answer this is to explain the value of being able to help yourself and the value to software users of being able to cooperate with eachother. Some people are not very receptive to this, but unfortunately for them they will probably learn this lesson later on when there's a bug they can't fix, or a price increase, or a change in file formats, or spyware, or adware, or their wishlist feature is never implemented, or the product is discontinued, or a combination of the above.