Why should software be free?

[Ted_Smith]

Let me begin by saying I love open-source software. I've used it quite a lot now and I contribute towards it for the system that I use for both of my websites (xoops.org - the open source CMS system). I love Linux and am enjoying learning how to use it. So this is by no means an attack of any sort.

But I am curious....the really smart guys who develop open source software, like Linux, freqeuntly hail that 'they believe software should be free' which is why they do what they do, for free. They get the reward of giving and helping others which is cool. But why should software be any more free than anything else? For example, I wouldn't expect to get a car, house or clothes for free. So why should I expect to get free software? Someone has to spend their own time, talents and efforts creating software just as a builder building a house, a designer creating a garment, or a steel worker creating a car. They use their efforts and skills and then sell the product to someone who has not got those skills or cannot put in that effort.

Like I say, I've been using open-source as much as possible for just over a year now having being brought up on Windows and I see such amazing software in open-source that must have taken months or years to develop (like GIMP and NVU), yet totally free.

My question, I guess, is "where's the catch?"

Just to reitterate - this is by no means an attack or insult of any kind. It is a compliment to those who create open-source and I just want to understand why those contributors believe software should free.

Thanks

Ted

[Knomefan]

Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects--such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline--in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

You'll find lots of interesting reading there.
And you are confusing free as in bear (that is, it doesn't cost anything) with free as in freedom (that is, people are free to do with the software what they want).

P.S.: And you are also confusing open source and free software. While they are related, they are to different things.
Check out the wikipedia writeup on this matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_vs._free_software

[Ted_Smith]

I got it :-) The use of the word 'free' was indeed causing me the confusion. I understand now...thanks.

Ted

[GeneralZod]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

You'll find lots of interesting reading there.
And you are confusing free as in bear (that is, it doesn't cost anything) with free as in freedom (that is, people are free to do with the software what they want).

P.S.: And you are also confusing open source and free software. While they are related, they are to different things.
Check out the wikipedia writeup on this matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_vs._free_software

What Knomefan said (although I would replace "bear" with "beer" ;)). Plus, a lot of OSS developers are paid for their work - in fact, I've heard some estimates that about 95% of the work done on the Linux kernel is by paid, full-time developers, although this sounds a little too high, to me.

It's worth noting that RMS once sold tapes of GNU software for hundreds of dollars a time - he is certainly not averse to people being recompensed for their work.



For example, I wouldn't expect to get a car, house or clothes for free. So why should I expect to get free software? Someone has to spend their own time, talents and efforts creating software just as a builder building a house, a designer creating a garment, or a steel worker creating a car.


This is true, but your usage of examples which cannot be copied indefinitely for zero cost (I can't magically created 100 copies of a pair of jeans I made, but I can do this for a piece of software) confuses the issue immensely. Your usage of "expect" is a touch ambiguous - I'd argue that it is reasonable to "expect" to get free software simply because history has shown that there are many producers who are willing to give you it for free! If you mean "expect" in the sense of "be entitled to", then things are a good deal less clear-cut :)

[LordDante]

The whole point is for the code to be free as in you can do with it whatever you want, you can take it and modify it but you must give (or sell) it along with the source code.

nobody is preventing you in supporting other open source projects along with your cms :)

[Knomefan]

First off, glad my post was helpful.


What Knomefan said (although I would replace "bear" with "beer" ;)).

Ooops, lol.
:-# :oops:

[kairu0]

Here is all the reason that you need:

"Sex is alot like software, it's better when it's free".

- Linus Torvalds

[unkemptwolf]

I blame this one on the English language, for using the same word to mean something with no cost, and something you can use as you see fit. We need new words.

[Brunellus]

I blame this one on the English language, for using the same word to mean something with no cost, and something you can use as you see fit. We need new words.
free software advocates seem to have decided to import the (French|Spanish) words gratis (for software free of charge) and libre (for software free from restrictions).

[egon spengler]

I blame this one on the English language, for using the same word to mean something with no cost, and something you can use as you see fit. We need new words.

I would think that they both have the same original meaning of exemption and unrestrained.

"Free of charge" uses free in the same context as "Free to use as you see fit"

[earobinson]

IMHO SW should not be free, It should be open source, or at least Open Standards and well documented.

EDIT 01:To lazy to back it up right now maybe ill do it later.

[TeeAhr1]

And you are confusing free as in bear (that is, it doesn't cost anything) with free as in freedom (that is, people are free to do with the software what they want).
Free bears? I want a free bear!!

Now how can I hide it from the landlord...

[raublekick]

I kinda like to look at it as this: hardware should cost money, it certainly costs money to make beyond the work hours put into it. The software to use the hardware should be free, in most cases.

This is actually usually the case in the Windows world (buy a device, it usually comes with Windows software to use it). But in Linux this is certainly not the case. I can buy a $30 DVD drive, but I can't legally use it to watch DVDs because the software to use it is commercial, and no one is porting it to Linux. This is kinda the case with video cards too. I can spend $200 on a nice new video card, but the software (drivers) to use it properly aren't exactly free, or even easy to use.

Other than that, I don't really care if hardware-independent software is commercial or not. It's awesome that Linux is free, but I would not be adverse to paying a small amount for some software.

[dpmaxey]

It's the VALUE of the software that should make it free...the usability of it. Since you may have already learned much about the history of Linux and Unix, then understanding that the Linux derived from the "hacker" culture, which doesn't mean the same thing you may be thinking. Hacker is not somebody who is bad and wants to use computers for a bad personal use regarding to money, secret information, and etc. Hacking basically means releasing source code that should be "free" source to everyone else. It's not to make money either, it's there for the valuable use of the software. Take a look at Linux's license and try to understand how Linux became, such as reading more information on the GNU Public License and whatnot.
Sincerely,
~Kawika~

[BWF89]

One reason software should be free (as in freedom) is so you don't have companies like Microsoft bullying other comanies to use their software & file standards or else.

[xequence]

If you are a developer and you make a good program, you will have a higher chance of making it open source if most other programs are open source on the OS. You know when Ballmer said linux was a cancer? He was sort of right. Not in the part that cancer is bad, but in the part that cancer spreads. The more open source software, the more people will take their new programs and make it open source.

That might not have made sense, but think - noone gets critisized on windows for not making their software open source. On linux people will change software from one free (but not open source) program to another program that works just as well but is open source for that sole reason.

The devs think: this wonderful community has given me so much free software, ill make my software free to give a little bit back.

Also, lets say there are two programs that are open source. They do very similar things. They both have the same bug. One of them gets it fixed and the other one looks into the source code and fixes their own. It really gets things done much faster and more efficient - open source software is about sharing and making everything better, not just your program.

[majikstreet]

software is free because I don't have enough money to pay for it. end of story. (btw... I didn't read all the replies in this thread....)

[prizrak]

software is free because I don't have enough money to pay for it. end of story. (btw... I didn't read all the replies in this thread....)
HAHA Signed! :D

[majikstreet]

HAHA Signed! :D
signed? huh?

[Ted_Smith]

Very interesting responses from everyone...thanks. I got a lot more replies than I expected.

The first post basically answered it for me though (lol) - I was thinking of the word 'free' as in 'no cost' as opposed to 'freedom'. That was the main confusion. But it's all been cleared up nicely now it seems. I was never in any doubt that open source software is better as a product. It was the use of the phrase ..'should be free' that was always confusing me before because I was always thinking "Well, why should it be?".

Cheers for now

Ted