PDA

View Full Version : Would you pay for software?



Pages : [1] 2

foresth
February 3rd, 2007, 10:18 PM
The question is very simple:

Would you ever pay for a commercial software for Linux, lets say if it was a good piece of software?

Randomskk
February 3rd, 2007, 10:23 PM
Sure, if it was something I wanted to use.
However, if there was a free alternative that was just as good, I'd probably go for the free one.

jvc26
February 3rd, 2007, 10:25 PM
No because I left the whole windows cycle to avoid having to pay/crack applications etc. I really like the fact I dont have to pay and consequently really would rather not :)
However, if, unlike so many applications it wasnt obscenely overpriced then I might consider it.
Il

bastiegast
February 3rd, 2007, 10:31 PM
I think so, yes. :guitar:
If it were a native version of Oblivion for example.

Gerard Barberi
February 3rd, 2007, 10:31 PM
No, I would rather there a free alternative to everything. I'd rather donate than pay licensing fees.

Randomskk
February 3rd, 2007, 10:47 PM
I think so, yes. :guitar:
If it were a native version of Oblivion for example.
Games especially - I paid for UT2004, for instance :D

Adamant1988
February 3rd, 2007, 10:50 PM
The question is very simple:

Would you ever pay for a commercial software for Linux, lets say if it was a good piece of software?

Absolutely. I paid for CNR (it's Open Source now) and I paid for Pixel Image Editor, once upon a time. I have no problem paying for software, what I have a problem paying is $600 for a piece of software I need for school or some such when there is a free alternative.

azkehmm
February 3rd, 2007, 10:52 PM
If it could help convince people to develop software for linux, then I sure would. I would prefer if it was opensource, though, but I guess that's a little much to ask from game-producers, for example. I mean... with game budgets reaching 20-30 million dollars, I think I'd prefer to protect my work too :)

PurplePenguin
February 3rd, 2007, 10:56 PM
Not exactly on topic, but... Just this morning, I paid $10 to upgrade my DYNDNS account, even though I didn't need to. I just wanted to support them because I've been enjoying their free service and I think it's very, very valuable.

OK, I know you asked about linux software, but to me it's the same kind of thing.

I think it's better to donate to companies that actually make useful contributions than be forced to pay for everything.

Ireclan
February 3rd, 2007, 10:57 PM
I would have no problem paying for Linux software, if it wasn't obscenely overpriced. It wouldn't even have to be open source.

quirt3
February 3rd, 2007, 10:59 PM
I would if it was something I REALLY wanted, but I'd prefer to donate.

IYY
February 3rd, 2007, 11:01 PM
I would if I really needed it and it was open source. However, I'll have to admit that I pirated most of my software when I used Windows.

TBOL3
February 3rd, 2007, 11:03 PM
Sort of, if I had to pay, I would rather by an apple, but if it was apple software, or the same or better quality, for less(and I could run it on any old PC) then yes.

AlexC_
February 3rd, 2007, 11:08 PM
This is what I don't understand with a lot of the linux community, why wont many many many of them even think about spending money on software? hundreds of hours or even more goes into making software yet a lot of linux users refuse to pay for it, even if it's open source for crist sake!!

Do you refuse to pay for a toaster? or a car? or a tv? No. You can not expect everything in your life to be free, you can not expect developers to spend so much time making software and then just not use it because you have to pay, even if it's open-source.

People have to make a living, yeah it's all good a well if you get sponsored by some other big company and they pay you every day to do it - but what about Joe Blogs in the corner, who made something that people could really benefit from but woops! oh no! he put a price on it ... doh - he's not gonna do well now is he!

Sorry to rant, but that is the one thing that annoys me so much.

edit: I know not everyone is like this, and people do donate to projects that don't put a price on software, or do pay for software, which is great! I do the same my self.

Adamant1988
February 3rd, 2007, 11:17 PM
This is what I don't understand with a lot of the linux community, why wont many many many of them even think about spending money on software? hundreds of hours or even more goes into making software yet a lot of linux users refuse to pay for it, even if it's open source for crist sake!!

Do you refuse to pay for a toaster? or a car? or a tv? No. You can not expect everything in your life to be free, you can not expect developers to spend so much time making software and then just not use it because you have to pay, even if it's open-source.

People have to make a living, yeah it's all good a well if you get sponsored by some other big company and they pay you every day to do it - but what about Joe Blogs in the corner, who made something that people could really benefit from but woops! oh no! he put a price on it ... doh - he's not gonna do well now is he!

Sorry to rant, but that is the one thing that annoys me so much.

edit: I know not everyone is like this, and people do donate to projects that don't put a price on software, or do pay for software, which is great! I do the same my self.

Buying software isn't the only way to pay the developers. I'm going to cite Google as a perfect example of this. Google develops all kinds of FREE software, that you don't have to pay for to get, and they just became a fortune 500 company not long ago. There are plenty of options available past paying for software, and many people would prefer to go that route.

Like I said, I'd rather not pay, but if I'm paying to get quality then I'll pay. But I'm not going to pay for an app when there is an almost equal quality free alternative, probably funded through donations and other schemes.

Artificial Intelligence
February 3rd, 2007, 11:21 PM
The question is very simple:

Would you ever pay for a commercial software for Linux, lets say if it was a good piece of software?

Aye, I would not have any problem buying a commercial software open or close source. Sure I prefer Open Source but it won't stop me if it isn't.

AlexC_
February 3rd, 2007, 11:22 PM
I know there are more ways to "pay" for free software, but what I'm getting at are the people that go "Pffft! Why should I have to pay for software?! It should be free! (price and speach)" that's like walking into a shop and going "Pfffftt! Why should I have to pay for this toaster?! It should be free!"

GeneralZod
February 3rd, 2007, 11:34 PM
The only closed-source software I would buy are games. I've "bought" plenty of open source software, though :)

Adamant1988
February 3rd, 2007, 11:34 PM
Uhm, no it's not. Not at all.

A better comparison would be a book, movie, or you know, piece of music.

"Why should I pay for this music, it should be free" Isn't that the entire idea that sparked napster, Kazaa, and Limewire?

You make 1 toaster, you have 1 toaster. You write 1 program, and the supply of that program is now as many as you want to make of it, and if distributed in download form, only limited by your bandwidth.

Kernel Sanders
February 3rd, 2007, 11:34 PM
I'll happily pay as long as the software was reasonably priced.

One of my pet hates with Microsoft is that their software is obscenely priced. Vista is worth about £80 for example. Its retail cost is close to £380, and almost twice the price of the retail version from the US :evil:

Zuuswa
February 3rd, 2007, 11:45 PM
Yes, I would pay for software. Mostly native linux games, however. And for the toaster debate, a toaster is a real world physical object; you can touch it, see it, taste it, etc. But a piece of software is just an idea, an arangement of pre-existing functions made to do computations and translate them into understandable data. You cant actually feel the software, its not a physical object. Try to go out and sell your ideas, and see how much money you can make.

Brainfart
February 4th, 2007, 01:25 AM
I would have no problem paying for Linux software, if it wasn't obscenely overpriced. It wouldn't even have to be open source.
++
Price is the worst part of running Windows, with quality coming in at a close second...

RandomJoe
February 4th, 2007, 02:02 AM
I would and have. Primarily games, as others have mentioned - specifically UT2k3 and UT2k4, although I did also buy Master of Orion 3 because I could run it in Wine. (So close enough... ;) )

But I would also purchase other software if needed and I perceived it to be a good value. The problem is generating that perception. One of the most frustrating things in the Windows world was I had to buy before I could try, or at best get a crippleware version to test first. Now, I can download the fully-functioning app and give it a whirl - even use it for a rather long period of time to verify it does what I want/need/planned - and then make payment without someone grumbling. So I have also paid for other apps that I didn't even have to just because they were a particularly good performer.

I suppose the fact that I've purchased Linux distros would count as paying too - I have bought every Slackware version for quite a while, and bought a couple of Red Hat versions back before the Fedora split. (I quit using Red Hat before then, that wasn't my reason for stopping.)

SunnyRabbiera
February 4th, 2007, 02:20 AM
I would pay for a linux distro and its software as long as it worked.
If in the future ubuntu had to produce a paid version I would not mind it if it was of a reasonable price (like $99 or so, I think its fair enough even when its a MS system)
But what i dont want insane million character registration codes like MS, paying for something is fine but dont shove codes on us please..
if Ubuntu was say $99 or so and it costs say $50 to upgrade it I think it would be good, as other OS's are much more in this term

aysiu
February 4th, 2007, 02:25 AM
I would pay for software. In fact, my wife and I buy a lot of software for her Mac (yes, we buy the software--not pirate it). Of course, since she's currently a student, we get a nice educational discount, but even with the discount a lot of the software she buys is expensive (Flash, Adobe CS2, Tiger, MS Office for Mac, etc.).

One of the appeals to me of Ubuntu is its cost... no cost.

katgfan
February 4th, 2007, 02:33 AM
Yes I would pay for it.

az
February 4th, 2007, 02:36 AM
Would I ever pay for a commercial software for Linux? Yes, sure. All the software is potentially commercial. That does not mean it's prorietary.

I would pay for services, but not to own the software.

Would I ever buy proprietary software? No, and I hope to never need to. Would I use proprietary software if it were free of cost? Same answer.

Linux and free-libre software are a multi-billion dollar industry. "Defined broadly, FLOSS-related services could reach a 32% share of all IT services by
2010, and the FLOSS-related share of the economy could reach 4% of European GDP by
2010"

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/2006-11-20-flossimpact.pdf

Why do I want to avoid proprietary software?

See here:
http://softwarefreedomday.org/SoftwareFreedom

Not often are our basic rights thought of in the context of technology, but with more and more our lives are dependent on technology, it is a rapidly growing concern. Technologies that matter to our freedom are used in our voting systems, our leisure, our work, education, art and our communication. What does this mean to you? It means that the basic human freedoms you take for granted are only as free as the technology they are based on.

Transparent and sustainable technologies are vital to ensuring we can protect our freedoms. Think about e-Government systems such as electronic voting. When the systems running our voting is proprietary or closed, it means that we canít be sure what the software actually does, so how can we trust the results?

MetalMusicAddict
February 4th, 2007, 02:38 AM
I would completely pay for native software that runs well. I support both business models.

Some people want this completely free (beer) software thing to happen. Its not going to. Theres room for both in my book.

EmilyRose
February 4th, 2007, 02:58 AM
Sure I'd pay for super good software. I used cracked windows software for years, but there were three programs that I paid for LONG ago because they were good enough - ZMud, Trillian and Opera (back when you had to pay to get rid of ads). So yeah, I'd pay for software, if it were good enough.

Brainfart
February 4th, 2007, 03:17 AM
Some people want this completely free (beer) software thing to happen. Its not going to. Theres room for both in my book.
++
Lots of people think of things from their own perspective; for many here, that would be as the end user, or, specifically, the one who shells out for the product. Nobody wants to pay for something they can get for free, but on the flipside who wants to work on something without getting paid? (Admittedly there are a few.) So many people say they like running *nix systems because it's free, but they forget about the people making it. Some distributions operate with other mechanisms to provide income (e.g. offering service/support plans), but other software groups are simply volunteers. Some of those are supported via donations, others don't get a dime.

az
February 4th, 2007, 05:24 AM
Some people want this completely free (beer) software thing to happen. Its not going to.

Free as in beer is freeware, which is not free as in freedom. Most freeware is proprietary software.

So long as developers work on software that is free-libre, you will be able to get it for free(no cost), as well.


who wants to work on something without getting paid? (Admittedly there are a few.) So many people say they like running *nix systems because it's free, but they forget about the people making it.

Again, from that study I quoted on the economic impact of open source software in Europe,

"Almost two-thirds of FLOSS software is still written by individuals; firms contribute
about 15% and other institutions another 20%."

But that still does not mean that these people are not making money for writing the code. They are not selling the code or making it proprietary. You can earn a good living writing free open source code. You pay the programmer for his/her service, but the code stays free.



Some distributions operate with other mechanisms to provide income (e.g. offering service/support plans), but other software groups are simply volunteers. Some of those are supported via donations, others don't get a dime.

Debian is an all-volunteer organisation. It has consistently been in the top ten most popular and most appreciated linux distributions for the past ten years.

Some of the debian devs work full-time in the field, often maintaining packages for debian which are relevant to their professional work.

Whether some users pay for the software or not is pretty much irrelevant to their choice to become a developer.

BarfBag
February 4th, 2007, 05:39 AM
I wouldn't have a problem. Some of you guys seem to be forgetting that open source isn't free beer, it's freedom. You could make money off of selling your software boxed, as long as you made the source code freely available.

YourSurrogateGod
February 4th, 2007, 05:57 AM
Yes.

3rdalbum
February 4th, 2007, 07:05 AM
If it was good software, where the open-source equivilant didn't work as well as I needed it to; and the software was reasonably priced and I could afford it; and it didn't phone home, then yes I would buy it.

I've only bought one piece of software for Linux: Return to Castle Wolfenstein; and even then I bought it to run on Windows before realising that you can get a Linux version :-)

closetpirate
February 4th, 2007, 07:25 AM
I would pay for great software but the consensus is true. I do not like software that is way over priced. My example is Dreamweaver. It is good software don't get me wrong and I would like to have a linux version available but whether it was for linux or not I am not going to pay $1000 for a program that will help me write code that I payed money to learn to write.

foresth
February 4th, 2007, 07:52 AM
Many thanks to all for your responses!

I must say I am very glad to hear it :).

foresth

clooch
February 4th, 2007, 01:24 PM
I prefer free but will donate to great software

MetalMusicAddict
February 4th, 2007, 03:20 PM
Some people want this completely free (beer) software thing to happen. Its not going to.


Free as in beer is freeware, which is not free as in freedom. Most freeware is proprietary software.
Partially quoting me in this instance puts a different slant on what I said so Ill explain more.

There are 2 sides as of now open-source and closed-source. I feel some people want to never pay for software. Some people want you to always pay for software. I dont think either side will win out. The extreme from another isnt any better in my book. Both sides will have to compromise.

So Ill happily buy software that runs native to linux and use open-source when I can.

runningwithscissors
February 4th, 2007, 06:18 PM
Partially quoting me in this instance puts a different slant on what I said so Ill explain more.

There are 2 sides as of now open-source and closed-source. I feel some people want to never pay for software. Some people want you to always pay for software. I dont think either side will win out. The extreme from another isnt any better in my book. Both sides will have to compromise.

So Ill happily buy software that runs native to linux and use open-source when I can.
It's not like people "dont't want to pay". If they can afford a piece of software, and really need it, they will pay. If they can't, they won't.
Also, if a free alternative is available, expect people to favour that.

Sunnz
February 4th, 2007, 06:35 PM
Depends on the cost of the software and the quality of the software compared to alternative FLOSS software.

I might even buy Vista for $5 if they can show me that it runs well on my hardware...

bobbybobington
February 4th, 2007, 06:55 PM
Yeah I would totally buy prop software for linux. Well given that it has no decent open source alternative and I actually need it. If they make an awesome program that you need, and they actually care enough to make a native version, why wouldn't I?

Sunnz
February 4th, 2007, 07:12 PM
Yeah I would totally buy prop software for linux. Well given that it has no decent open source alternative and I actually need it. If they make an awesome program that you need, and they actually care enough to make a native version, why wouldn't I?
Why wouldn't you? What if it is too expensive?

az
February 4th, 2007, 07:54 PM
Partially quoting me in this instance puts a different slant on what I said so Ill explain more.

There are 2 sides as of now open-source and closed-source. I feel some people want to never pay for software. Some people want you to always pay for software. I dont think either side will win out. The extreme from another isnt any better in my book. Both sides will have to compromise.

So Ill happily buy software that runs native to linux and use open-source when I can.

What defines the difference between the two sides (open-source and closed-source) is not how much or how their developers get paid. The two sides have nothing to do with whether you, the user, pay or not. They are either side of the Intellectual Property fence.

On one side, the code belongs to someone and they excercise their rights to limit you from using their property. This is proprietary software.

The other side of the fence is where the code belongs to everyone. This is free-libre software.

You can charge for free-libre software (red-hat, Suse, Linspire all do) or you can give it away for free. You can charge for proprietary software (Windows, Mac OS) or you can give it away for free (Adobe acrobat, loads of other freeware...) That's irrelevant.

What's important is the difference in the way they are made and the rights to which the end-users are entitled.

You don't have to care about software freedom to use free-libre software. But FLOSS is much more than just software given away free of cost.

weasel fierce
February 4th, 2007, 08:49 PM
I dont mind paying for software, if it means I get a solid product

metuwi
February 4th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Of course I would pay. The thread-maker's question seems to stem from some idealistic noition about sticking to open source software for its own sake. It's a stupid attitude.

az
February 4th, 2007, 09:37 PM
The thread-maker's question seems to stem from some idealistic noition about sticking to open source software for its own sake. It's a stupid attitude.

That "stupid" attitude is the reason why most of the developers of the software release it under the GPL and not some other licence. If it weren't for that attitude, you would be running either windows or Mac right now.

This software would not exist if there were not so many people who cared about software freedom and your rights.

As I said, you don't have to care about software freedom to use the software. It's there for anyone to use for any purpose.


So, why do you think it's a stupid attitude?

Brainfart
February 4th, 2007, 09:45 PM
So, why do you think it's a stupid attitude?
I'd say it's a stupid attitude to expect everyone to adhere to. The ideals behind it, however, are pretty swell (I supposed ideals are supposed to be...). ;)

dvarsam
February 4th, 2007, 11:12 PM
What defines the difference between the two sides (open-source and closed-source) is not how much or how their developers get paid. The two sides have nothing to do with whether you, the user, pay or not. They are either side of the Intellectual Property fence.

On one side, the code belongs to someone and they exercise their rights to limit you from using their property. This is proprietary software.

The other side of the fence is where the code belongs to everyone. This is free-libre software.

You can charge for free-libre software (red-hat, Suse, Linspire all do) or you can give it away for free. You can charge for proprietary software (Windows, Mac OS) or you can give it away for free (Adobe acrobat, loads of other freeware...) That's irrelevant.

What's important is the difference in the way they are made and the rights to which the end-users are entitled.

You don't have to care about software freedom to use free-libre software. But FLOSS is much more than just software given away free of cost.

I have always thought of a 3rd option:

You pay for now, so that the project can have available funds to improve/turn to perfect.
However the Software Company, has made a promise to release the full code in 10 years from now...
Why does it have to be:

1. Open Source, or
2. Closed Source

While it could also be:

3. Closed Source for now, but open in the near future!!!

I consider this the "best" solution!
Why?
Because IF I want to "donate" money, I want to donate to the project/feature I truly want/care about...!!!
In some sort of way, this is a smart way to "boost" the Software creation in Linux...!!!
You pay for a product to use for now, but you are going to have/use it for free in the near future...!!! :)
In some sort of way, you feel you are a "donator" for a Linux Development Project...
Cause in a few years, all the code is going to be released & you are going to have a good S-ware to use for Free!

Thanks.

Brainfart
February 4th, 2007, 11:22 PM
I have always thought of a 3rd option:

You pay for now, so that the project can have available funds to improve/turn to perfect.
However the Software Company, has made a promise to release the full code in 10 years from now...
10 years is akin to forever when it comes to software. Things move very fast. I think your idea is a nice, if idealistic, one, but it seems like an organization developing a software would either start open source, or open the source after the product was outdated. That's one beauty of OSS, that you get up to date software, and you can help in keeping it more up to date.

metuwi
February 4th, 2007, 11:28 PM
That "stupid" attitude is the reason why most of the developers of the software release it under the GPL and not some other licence. If it weren't for that attitude, you would be running either windows or Mac right now.

This software would not exist if there were not so many people who cared about software freedom and your rights.

As I said, you don't have to care about software freedom to use the software. It's there for anyone to use for any purpose.


So, why do you think it's a stupid attitude?

Perhaps you are stupid too. You are totally misunderstanding me. Try to really read my post. Do a close reading.

I was talking about the question. "Would you ever pay...?" Some people would answer "no." Why? Simply because "it's not open source." That is stupidly idealistic.

I just use whatever works best for me, whether I have to pay or not is secondary.

iPower
February 4th, 2007, 11:50 PM
if it's games then yes ^_^

az
February 5th, 2007, 01:17 AM
I have always thought of a 3rd option:

...
You pay for a product to use for now, but you are going to have/use it for free in the near future...!!! :)
In some sort of way, you feel you are a "donator" for a Linux Development Project...
Cause in a few years, all the code is going to be released & you are going to have a good S-ware to use for Free!



What's the advantage to paying for closed-source code? Why not pay for open source code?

The thing you lose which is relevant to your example is the community around the project. When you are dealing with a proprietary project, you deal with very few developers other than your own. When you deal with FLOSS, you can harvest the talents of the community, the people who are interested in seeing the project succeed. These people would not be able to come together for a closed proprietary project.

The licencing of the code under the GPL is not only a promise to them that you are giving back to the community, it's actual, tangible effort. You release early and release often and the project is here and now. That's what people who will help your project want to see.

You also get the ability to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and reuse excellent code. You can build upon it.


Perhaps you are stupid too. You are totally misunderstanding me. Try to really read my post. Do a close reading. .

Be respectful or leave. I am answering to exactly what you said and meant.



I was talking about the question. "Would you ever pay...?" Some people would answer "no." Why? Simply because "it's not open source." That is stupidly idealistic.


Whether it's would you pay or would you use is irrelevant in your context.

And you are ignorant. What you call stupidly idealistic is a proven fact. GNU went from a free-libre toolchain (1980s) to a some world-class software (1990s) to a world-class full-fledged multi-purpose OS (today) simply because a lot of people would not settle for proprietary code.

Dr. C
February 5th, 2007, 02:32 AM
I will pay for software if the software is free of DRM infections.

During the 1990's I was a loyal Microsoft customer and purchased a lot of their software but, when Microsoft started to infect their software with DRM at the turn of the millennium my loyalty to Microsoft ended and here I am.

dvarsam
February 5th, 2007, 05:17 PM
Perhaps you are stupid too. You are totally misunderstanding me. Try to really read my post. Do a close reading.

Lets all chill out a bit please...
Come on, we are all grownups!
I don't know who started this & don't care who is to blame...
But just keep it nice & polite please...
Thanks.

dvarsam
February 5th, 2007, 05:23 PM
10 years is akin to forever when it comes to software. Things move very fast.

Is it the # of years the problem?
This is all up the Company to decide...
The company will decide how many years are required to create a really good software...


I think your idea is a nice, if idealistic, one, but it seems like an organization developing a software would either start open source, or open the source after the product was outdated. That's one beauty of OSS, that you get up to date software, and you can help in keeping it more up to date.

Yes, but you need some money to get you going dude...
Unless you own one of those Printing machines that print US Dollars!!! :)

BTW: how are you going to live without cash man?
NOT to mention that Linux needs to develop a lot of things currently...
So, this is only an idea to build software faster...!!!

Thanks.
P.S.> IF you can think of another idea to get development move faster, step forward & shoot it...
But money is involved in everything...

deanlinkous
February 5th, 2007, 05:25 PM
The question is very simple:

Would you ever pay for a commercial software for Linux, lets say if it was a good piece of software?

Nope. If you mean non-free closed type software, never again. Microsoft is not the enemy, proprietary software is the enemy.

aktiwers
February 5th, 2007, 06:49 PM
I would crack it

Sunnz
February 5th, 2007, 06:53 PM
No matter how much you hate an artist, you have no right to go steal their CD from a shop.

It shouldn't any different for software. You either pay for it or use something else.

Brainfart
February 5th, 2007, 06:54 PM
Is it the # of years the problem?
This is all up the Company to decide...
The company will decide how many years are required to create a really good software...
My point was more that by the time the company opens the source, they'll have moved on to the next version (or two) and the now-open source would be outdated. By then they'd have gotten you you buy a newer version (or an upgrade) on a similar timed-opening deal. Not too different from how things work today...


Yes, but you need some money to get you going dude...
Unless you own one of those Printing machines that print US Dollars!!! :)

BTW: how are you going to live without cash man?
NOT to mention that Linux needs to develop a lot of things currently...
So, this is only an idea to build software faster...!!!

Thanks.
P.S.> IF you can think of another idea to get development move faster, step forward & shoot it...
But money is involved in everything...
I completely agree. In fact, I've used the same argument myself, on several occasions. However, there are some groups that have managed to pull it off. I hesitate to say that the main bottleneck in OSS development is often the number of programmers, because too many cooks will spoil the broth. But I think that available manpower is often the reason why development takes "so long" (which is typically pretty short anyways). Many of them volunteer their time, with or without compensation.

For a company selling software, I see no financial benefit for them to open their code at the point-of-sale. They might do it much later (see above), but in terms of profitability it seems like it'd be best to keep it closed and make everyone pay for it (and possibly pay for special changes/requests separately). Those companies still want their development to be as fast as possible, otherwise they'll be missing out on money. So the question of making development faster doesn't seem to apply.

newlinux
February 5th, 2007, 06:59 PM
I'd pay for software open or closed source if I thought it was worth it, and no free alternative that suited my needs (or wants) existed. Just like anything else I'd buy in life. If I could get it for free (legally) I wouldn't pay for it. If it weren't free then it would have to be worth the money to me.

Brainfart
February 5th, 2007, 07:01 PM
No matter how much you hate an artist, you have no right to go steal their CD from a shop.

It shouldn't any different for software. You either pay for it or use something else.
QFT
People seem to think that cracking software 1) hurts a company, and 2) is acceptable. As to hurting a company, if you weren't gonna buy it in the first place, the only loss to them is that of a potential customer; hopefully it'll still wear on your conscience, but you're not hurting them directly. This doesn't mean it's OK to pirate software that you "weren't going to buy." Anyone can say there weren't going to buy something. If you were going to buy it, it definitely goes into the realm of the second point (ends up here either way really). Taking something from someone (a person, organization, whatever) without proper compensation is theft. Plain and simple. You can say that it's to support your ideals, but that would imply that your ideals also include stealing. How would you like it if someone "cracked" your car?

kebes
February 5th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Taking something from someone (a person, organization, whatever) without proper compensation is theft. Plain and simple.

I'm not sure I really want to get into this debate... but...

Copying software (or music, etc.) is not theft. It is copyright infringement. You can argue that it is immoral, but please do not call it stealing. If I steal something, the original owner is deprived of use of that thing, because they no longer have it. If I copy something, I have a copy, but the original person still has their copy, and can use it. There is a semantic difference here.

Again, I'm not arguing morality or legality here, but terminology. Please do not call it stealing. It simply confuses the issue.


How would you like it if someone "cracked" your car?

If they "cracked" my car and somehow ended up with an identical copy of that car, but I still had my car to use and enjoy, then I would be very happy. I would probably tell all my friends about the event and give them copies of my car, too. :)

aktiwers
February 5th, 2007, 07:24 PM
I agree with you Kebes..

happy-and-lost
February 5th, 2007, 07:46 PM
Well, I paid for NeverWinter Nights.

It might not be natively Linux, but it has an official client and doesn't need to be emulated or run under Wine.

maxamillion
February 5th, 2007, 07:49 PM
Yes, I would openly and willingly spend money on good software.

SlayerMan
February 5th, 2007, 08:08 PM
I already did so... I bought this software (German page):

http://www.mupad.de/download/

Really a great maths app. And the .deb runs nicely on Ubuntu, too :)

Quillz
February 5th, 2007, 08:10 PM
I'd probably pay for Cedega if I was an avid gamer.

odin1965
February 5th, 2007, 08:12 PM
Yes, I would definitely pay for a native Linux CAD package. AutoCAD for Windows is WAY overpriced at about 4 or 5 grand. Bricscad comes close with a Linux version which runs under wine. I hear the next release will have a native Linux version. At about 200 to 500 bucks it is still a good deal.

loserboy
February 5th, 2007, 08:21 PM
I'd pay.

Brainfart
February 5th, 2007, 08:44 PM
I'm not sure I really want to get into this debate... but...

Copying software (or music, etc.) is not theft. It is copyright infringement. You can argue that it is immoral, but please do not call it stealing. If I steal something, the original owner is deprived of use of that thing, because they no longer have it. If I copy something, I have a copy, but the original person still has their copy, and can use it. There is a semantic difference here.

Again, I'm not arguing morality or legality here, but terminology. Please do not call it stealing. It simply confuses the issue.
Hm... Steal:

1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>
...


If they "cracked" my car and somehow ended up with an identical copy of that car, but I still had my car to use and enjoy, then I would be very happy. I would probably tell all my friends about the event and give them copies of my car, too. :):lolflag: You got me there

prizrak
February 5th, 2007, 08:47 PM
If it something I need/want sure why not. I pay for games for the Wii and Windows for instance why not Linux? Sure most software is available free that has good enough functionality for 90% of the people but in some cases you need that extra. Plus I seriously doubt any company would ever open up their new games since there is money to be made in licensing the 3D engines as well as selling games themselves.

loserboy
February 5th, 2007, 08:58 PM
Since this is off topic and i know you werent trying to start an argument, im just gonna make one quick comment



If they "cracked" my car and somehow ended up with an identical copy of that car, but I still had my car to use and enjoy, then I would be very happy. I would probably tell all my friends about the event and give them copies of my car, too.

I think maybe your metaphor is wrong, If you were trying to sell your car and it was unique and this was your only means of making money, then someone found a way copy your car and give them away, you'd be out of a job (and money).

aysiu
February 5th, 2007, 09:04 PM
The car manufacturer wouldn't be too happy about it and would probably end up losing enough money to stop manufacturing that type of car... or any other type of car in the future.

kebes
February 5th, 2007, 09:11 PM
If you were trying to sell your car and it was unique and this was your only means of making money, then someone found a way copy your car and give them away, you'd be out of a job (and money).

Yes, that analogy is certainly closer to the software one. No doubt the guy who designed and built that unique car would be angry. I would argue, however, that if he is still in possession of his car then his car has not been "stolen". (This was my original point.)

I'm not trying to defend the action of copying people's cars (or software), merely trying to differentiate between stealing and copying.

Yes (as Brainfart correctly pointed out) the definition of "steal" is broad enough that you can include various actions like copying data. However I think doing so muddies the waters. It confuses the issue and moreover such language is emotionally-charged and intended to bias the debate in a particular direction.

Just call it copyright infringement. That's what it is.

kebes
February 5th, 2007, 09:15 PM
The car manufacturer wouldn't be too happy about it and would probably end up losing enough money to stop manufacturing that type of car... or any other type of car in the future.

Quite right. The question becomes, "in a world where cars can be replicated easily, do we need car manufacturers? ... Or, more to the point, would we need special laws to protect car manufacturers, just as copyright protects software writers?"

loserboy
February 5th, 2007, 09:22 PM
don't get me wrong i'm not saying i'm sinless in the "copyright infringement" area, and i understand what your saying, but is it muddying the waters, or is it splitting hairs to say theres a difference?


ok i'm really done now :)

Brainfart
February 5th, 2007, 09:23 PM
Yes (as Brainfart correctly pointed out) the definition of "steal" is broad enough that you can include various actions like copying data. However I think doing so muddies the waters. It confuses the issue and moreover such language is emotionally-charged and intended to bias the debate in a particular direction.

Just call it copyright infringement. That's what it is.
From a similar discussion on a different forum:

As to the subject, piracy is theft. Do it, or not, whatever flips your skirt up, but don't try to disguise it by painting it the color of 'relative price'.
While the relative price clause doesn't apply to this argument, the rest of it makes a good point. Calling it copyright-infringement is what muddies the waters. Makes it sound more acceptable, even though the underlying premise is the same. (Copyright and patents were originally formulated to keep people from stealing others' ideas, afterall).

loserboy
February 5th, 2007, 09:32 PM
At any rate, I would love to go to Wal-mart and buy a copy of something that runs on linux natively, I dont care what it is and I want it to have a big fat penguin on the front, mooning the windows program next to it.

kebes
February 5th, 2007, 09:37 PM
is it splitting hairs to say theres a difference?

Yeah you might be right! I can be pedantic sometimes. :) I do find that in debates using very precise language can help avoid misunderstandings, though.


Calling it copyright-infringement is what muddies the waters. Makes it sound more acceptable...

I certainly see your point. Let's just say that the "pro-status-quo-copyright" camp generally use the term "steal" and the "copyright-reform" camp sometimes use the term "share information." I personally find copyright infringement to be the most neutral term available. (It is the legal term, after all. Legally, copyright infringement is not classified as theft.)


In any case, my opinions on the matter are very strong, so I will now bow-out of this debate, since it's really quite tangential to the original thread! :)

-Ghost9-
February 5th, 2007, 09:42 PM
i was actually going to post something like this question.

If companies like adobe introduced linux versions of their software, do you think that the linux community would instantly reject it; or do you think it could actually draw a group of people into the linux community?

I personally would be inclined more strongly to use linux on a daily basis if the programs my professions use were on linux. There are free versions like the adobe products, but how they work together and their quality are undeniable. I would definately pay for it, but i wonder if the community would fight it.

Brainfart
February 5th, 2007, 10:03 PM
i was actually going to post something like this question.

If companies like adobe introduced linux versions of their software, do you think that the linux community would instantly reject it; or do you think it could actually draw a group of people into the linux community?

I personally would be inclined more strongly to use linux on a daily basis if the programs my professions use were on linux. There are free versions like the adobe products, but how they work together and their quality are undeniable. I would definately pay for it, but i wonder if the community would fight it.
I think if there were more widespread applications available that the popularity of Linux would increase even more, no problem. Whether some of the products would actually be used or not depends on the product. Many people shun Flash because it's closed source. If it were opened, it'd probably become even more popular than it is (at least, in the small market of Linux users). However, Acrobat would probably never get much market. People can create PDFs with OpenOffice, LaTeX, and probably various others. Besides, Adobe's code is, well, not exactly neat and tidy (hence the large and slow applications; a peer of mine who interned there has shared a similar opinion). Other applications could do very well. Especially games. If there were more popular games that ran natively in Linux, even closed source, I think Linux would become much more popular for the general consumer (afterall, they don't care about open-sources - look at what they're using now).

aysiu
February 5th, 2007, 10:04 PM
If companies like adobe introduced linux versions of their software, do you think that the linux community would instantly reject it; or do you think it could actually draw a group of people into the linux community? You'd be hard-pressed to get an agreed-upon stance by "the" (singular) "Linux community." Just look at reactions to CNR being ported to Ubuntu. Some are utterly disgusted. Others are thrilled. You won't get any one response to a native Linux CS3. Many designers will be thrilled and FOSS purists will be unhappy. And then you'll get a mix of responses in between.

shining
February 5th, 2007, 10:48 PM
I would rather donate to open source software than paying a proprietary one.
But I would prefer really contributing to oss.

az
February 6th, 2007, 02:18 AM
I'm not sure I really want to get into this debate... but...

Copying software (or music, etc.) is not theft. It is copyright infringement. You can argue that it is immoral, but please do not call it stealing. If I steal something, the original owner is deprived of use of that thing, because they no longer have it. If I copy something, I have a copy, but the original person still has their copy, and can use it. There is a semantic difference here.

Again, I'm not arguing morality or legality here, but terminology. Please do not call it stealing. It simply confuses the issue.



If they "cracked" my car and somehow ended up with an identical copy of that car, but I still had my car to use and enjoy, then I would be very happy. I would probably tell all my friends about the event and give them copies of my car, too. :)

There is a free copy of the book by Lawrence Lessig called Free Culture:
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

In the chapter about piracy there is neat overview of Intellectual Property. It starts on page thirty of the PDF document.

In reference to this discussion, is software property?

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 02:42 AM
and the thing is, anyone that "steals" software would likely never have paid for it anyway...

I use to copy all kinds of games for my commodore but I would not have bought ANY of it so nobody actually lost a sell. In fact, they may have gained from it since I spread the word how good it was and possibly others went out and bought it.

That being said, I only have music and software that I paid for IF any payment was required. Of course, that also means that brittney spears does not get a buck from me, and does not get word of mouth advertising....

Is "some" piracy a good thing. Everyone has XP because everyone has XP, some people bought it just to have the latest and coolest and without some pirated copies then it would not of ever been the latest and coolest. Honestly, did anyone WANT to pay for XP? :)
How did this turn into a "piracy" discussion anyway...

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 02:57 AM
and the thing is, anyone that "steals" software would likely never have paid for it anyway...

I use to copy all kinds of games for my commodore but I would not have bought ANY of it so nobody actually lost a sell. In fact, they may have gained from it since I spread the word how good it was and possibly others went out and bought it.

That being said, I only have music and software that I paid for IF any payment was required. Of course, that also means that brittney spears does not get a buck from me, and does not get word of mouth advertising....

Is "some" piracy a good thing. Everyone has XP because everyone has XP, some people bought it just to have the latest and coolest and without some pirated copies then it would not of ever been the latest and coolest. Honestly, did anyone WANT to pay for XP? :)
How did this turn into a "piracy" discussion anyway...
Paying for XP was worth it... depending on the price you paid. Paying $400 or whatever it was for XP Pro was a ripoff. Paying $20 for legal copies was a steal (thank god for MSFT store). But lots of people were probably willing to pay an amount somewhere in the middle, since the alternative was ME (for home users at least). I think $100-$150 would have been fair (probably $100 for home, $150 for pro). I also think that piracy would not have been such a big deal if the prices were close to reasonable.

Piracy is still piracy though, and wrong. I'll admit that I've pirated music and video. I don't particularly regret it, but mainly because I now have a huge shopping list of things I want... and a list of things I don't. I've pirated software in the past, but it was always just to try it out; once I decided one way or the other, I'd either pay or get rid of it. That amount of piracy I'm fine with (call it a double standard, see if I care :p) so long as the pirate evens things out in the end.

Maybe I feel stronger about this than most people (even with my double standard), since I'll be spending my career writing the software that people are pirating. I do think that lots of products a demo would be really nice rather than creating the pirate-demo I described above (many people claim to do it to "demo" something, then decide they've already got a working copy, why bother pay for another?).

Can't remember how the hijack started, but it's pretty much taken over :oops:

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 03:51 AM
So do you honestly think that everyone who currently has a "illegal" copy of XP would of went out and actually bought copies had the "illegal" copy not been available and they already had a legal copy of ME or 2000 or whatever?

I used a illegal copy of 98 but I would of never bought it so no sale was lost... I didn't cost MS anything. I had a illegal copy of boson router software, still I would not of ever paid the price they asked for it so no sale lost. So not every act of piracy equals a lost sale.

Why create a demo when they have pirate demo? Any demo puts a (hopefully) fully functioning product in their hands and then it is just a demo-crack away from full version. Once again, why would anyone buy it then? :D

euler_fan
February 6th, 2007, 03:54 AM
Yes. Ideally, I would want the software itself to be open source, but pay for upgrades. I am thinking a Linux version of TurboTax or some equivalent software on that count. Or security software for a server, etc.

If I had to pay for a few closed-source apps to completely break free from windows, then presuming it is no more than a handful, they my answer is still yes.

No, I would not be happy with commercial, closed-source apps dominating the Linux environment. I don't think that will happen thought with the current wealth of free software out there though.

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 04:08 AM
So do you honestly think that everyone who currently has a "illegal" copy of XP would of went out and actually bought copies had the "illegal" copy not been available and they already had a legal copy of ME or 2000 or whatever?

I used a illegal copy of 98 but I would of never bought it so no sale was lost... I didn't cost MS anything. I had a illegal copy of boson router software, still I would not of ever paid the price they asked for it so no sale lost. So not every act of piracy equals a lost sale.

Why create a demo when they have pirate demo? Any demo puts a (hopefully) fully functioning product in their hands and then it is just a demo-crack away from full version. Once again, why would anyone buy it then? :D
So, when you installed your cracked copy, did you sign the EULA? Without signing it, you forfeited the right to use the software. If you did sign it, you surely broke the Agreement and forfeited the right to use the software. Either way, you shouldn't have been using it. Or are legal agreements justifiably broken if you get something at no visible cost to another party?

Nobody ever understands this, but just because you didn't cost the company anything doesn't mean that you deprived them of profit. By using their software, you did cost them the loss of a sale.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 04:15 AM
So, when you installed your cracked copy, did you sign the EULA? Without signing it, you forfeited the right to use the software. If you did sign it, you surely broke the Agreement and forfeited the right to use the software. Either way, you shouldn't have been using it. Or are legal agreements justifiably broken if you get something at no visible cost to another party?

Nobody ever understands this, but just because you didn't cost the company anything doesn't mean that you deprived them of profit. By using their software, you did cost them the loss of a sale.

Nobody ever understand this. What sale did I cost them? I already said I had no intention of buying it. I would not of paid for it. If I did not get the "illegal" copy then I would of continued to use 95. So what sale did they lose? How did I deprive them of profit? No sale is no sale, regardless of what I illegally use....

You are right I should not of been using it - and I didn't for very long - thanks GNU! :)

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 04:22 AM
Nobody ever understand this. What sale did I cost them? I already said I had no intention of buying it. I would not of paid for it. If I did not get the "illegal" copy then I would of continued to use 95. So what sale did they lose? How did I deprive them of profit? No sale is no sale, regardless of what I illegally use....

You are right I should not of been using it - and I didn't for very long - thanks GNU! :)
If you had intentions to use it, you legally had implied intentions to buy it. Anything else would be illegal. That's all I'm going to say. After all, to quote your sig, you "don't live in the real world." Not much I can do about that.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 04:46 AM
No....I had intentions of using it....illegal intentions. They still did not lose a sell. If you can provide a answer as to how they actually lost money on a sale they would not of made anyway then I would love to hear it explained.

I am not debating the illegal part.

I assure you my stance is fairly common even in the "real world". Companies know this, often companies look the other way because they want their software to be popular. Popular software == sales!

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 04:49 AM
No....I had intentions of using it....illegal intentions. They still did not lose a sell. If you can provide a answer as to how they actually lost money on a sale they would not of made anyway then I would love to hear it explained.

I am not debating the illegal part.

I assure you my stance is fairly common even in the "real world". Companies know this, often companies look the other way because they want their software to be popular. Popular software == sales!
The loss of a sale is implied by ethical usage of their software. Without meeting that precondition, you would be correct that they did not lose a sale. Sorry for misunderstanding, I was thinking our discussion assumed that the condition had been met.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 04:59 AM
so the question is - how many sales are truly lost due to illegal software copies? how many are gained due to increased popularity?

Honestly, how many people use illegal photoshop (i think that is the name) and how many could actually afford it, how many would pay for it if they could afford it.

One person I know said their company releases serial codes to the crack sites for the older version of their software in hopes people will like it and purchase the new version as well to increase the popularity of their software and make it something "everyone" uses. The software actually calls home to verify the serial code and "activate" the product and the user account.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 05:04 AM
The loss of a sale is implied by ethical usage of their software. Without meeting that precondition, you would be correct that they did not lose a sale. Sorry for misunderstanding, I was thinking our discussion assumed that the condition had been met.

Yes, if I was going to go buy the software and while on my way I noticed a illegal copy of it and grabbed it, then if I chose not to buy it then they would lose a sale.

But most people who use illegal crackz and serialz are not looking to buy software in the first place only to illegally obtain it. The vast majority of people that truly can afford to buy, and have intentions to buy, would never use a illegal copy anyway - they want a legit copy of the product. Honestly, raise your hand if you use a illegal version of XYZ123 and that you would of actually bought a copy if you could not obtain it illegally, seriously you would of paid for it and the three upgraded versions you have cracked as well.... :D

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 05:10 AM
Honestly, how many people use illegal photoshop (i think that is the name) and how many could actually afford it, how many would pay for it if they could afford it.
Lots use it. It's a "cool" program to have and use. How much money is Adobe making when everyone has the newest version cracked? Not much. If it were priced reasonably (IMHO the biggest cause of piracy), do you think it'd sell better? I do. Hell, you might even get parents buying it for their kids for Christmas or something. $650 is ridiculous for this software. If it was 1/4 that much (~$150) I bet they'd have a lot more actual sales. Sure, they'd have to sell 4x as many copies to make the same profit, but if they'd priced it reasonably from the start that probably would not be an issue. As it is, the price drop might get a few new people to buy it, but most people will likely as not continue to pirate it. Now the company's got themselves locked into a smaller profit base.


One person I know said their company releases serial codes to the crack sites for the older version of their software in hopes people will like it and purchase the new version as well to increase the popularity of their software and make it something "everyone" uses. The software actually calls home to verify the serial code and "activate" the product and the user account.That sounds silly. Why release the codes to crackers instead of releasing them publicly? Stupid company...

BOBSONATOR
February 6th, 2007, 05:16 AM
I like to pay for games that i play online, thats about it.

And its not like i download thousadns of copies of softwares and burn them all on discs and hand them out to shmo's.

And i will admit it, i have only pirated one movie in my life, and bought that movie because it was a good movie and the quality was crap.

steven8
February 6th, 2007, 05:16 AM
That sounds silly. Why release the codes to crackers instead of releasing them publicly? Stupid company...

No, not stupid. People love to think they are getting away with something. That is the allure. They would be suspicious of a company just handing out serial codes. They'd think the company had the program phoning home on them. :-)

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 05:17 AM
Yes, if I was going to go buy the software and while on my way I noticed a illegal copy of it and grabbed it, then if I chose not to buy it then they would lose a sale.

But most people who use illegal crackz and serialz are not looking to buy software in the first place only to illegally obtain it. The vast majority of people that truly can afford to buy, and have intentions to buy, would never use a illegal copy anyway - they want a legit copy of the product. Honestly, raise your hand if you use a illegal version of XYZ123 and that you would of actually bought a copy if you could not obtain it illegally, seriously you would of paid for it and the three upgraded versions you have cracked as well.... :D
You've brought up a great point. The prices on a lot of commonly cracked software is unaffordable. On the one hand, most of this is professional software, and its target audience can afford it. On the other hand there's a significant number of users who want the software, even if for non-professional uses. Unfortunately, even with educational discounts, lots of this software is still extremely costly (e.g. Photoshop is still $300), and that only benefits people who qualify for it.

As to the cracked software, I technically can't raise my hand. I have one cracked game on my computer that I haven't gone out to buy yet. Probably get it later this month when I have a little spending money. Otherwise all my stuff is legally licensed. If I want something and can't afford it, I either pinch pennies to save for it, or I find a cheaper alternative... or I go without it.

BOBSONATOR
February 6th, 2007, 05:18 AM
Oh, and in terms of the topic, i would pay $1 for a linux that worked perfectly out of the box, all drivers, all games, everything. (thats just cause i am a little lazy and dont have a lot of time to play around with linux, but i love it to death)

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 05:20 AM
No, not stupid. People love to think they are getting away with something. That is the allure. They would be suspicious of a company just handing out serial codes. They'd think the company had the program phoning home on them. :-)
I think there'd be a better way than condoning program crackers. They could simply announce free registration and change the server that received the call home to always accept new registrations. IMHO that'd probably even make the company a lot more popular. Of course, if people knew that the software was calling home anyways, they might get fussy...

Besides, I don't want to risk any side effects from a software crack...

kevinlyfellow
February 6th, 2007, 05:26 AM
I think the only software that I would buy would be a game. Its like buying water, it just seems like it should be available to everyone. I've also considered buying mathematica or matlab, but I feel that octave/gnuplot and yacas have provided me with enough functionality that I don't need to. So buying essentials no! buying frivolous software, yes.

aysiu
February 6th, 2007, 05:35 AM
I don't condone piracy, but debates about whether it's "stealing" or not are a matter of semantics. Some call it stealing because you're getting something you didn't pay for but should have paid for. Others call it not stealing because you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so it's not a lost sale to the company. Bottom line: it's illegal, whether you call it "stealing" or not.

That said, while the legality is pretty clear cut, the net effect (positive/negative) piracy has on a company isn't so clear cut.

According to this article (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html), Bill Gates would rather have you pirate Windows than not use it at all:
Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 05:42 AM
You've brought up a great point. The prices on a lot of commonly cracked software is unaffordable. On the one hand, most of this is professional software, and its target audience can afford it. On the other hand there's a significant number of users who want the software, even if for non-professional uses. Unfortunately, even with educational discounts, lots of this software is still extremely costly (e.g. Photoshop is still $300), and that only benefits people who qualify for it.

As to the cracked software, I technically can't raise my hand. I have one cracked game on my computer that I haven't gone out to buy yet. Probably get it later this month when I have a little spending money. Otherwise all my stuff is legally licensed. If I want something and can't afford it, I either pinch pennies to save for it, or I find a cheaper alternative... or I go without it.

Actually, I suspect it is not only the old versions in some cases.

Also, if the company released the serial for the old version then nobody would feel guilty about using the "illegal" version. People would know that if they waited they could always use the older version for free. But with a crack then they are going to have to search for a crack, brave malware and so forth, see the pr0n banners and so forth. So get the people hooked on free ludes first then offer them a great price on the prescription *****. :) As I said, companies realize that those that can pay and plan to pay, rarely pirate software. So pirated software is rarely a lost sale.

So you think the price makes a big difference? I doubt it very much. I still think it comes down to intentions. The software I use to purchase I could of easily got the cracked illegal version but I had the money, I wanted the software and I wanted it legit. I wanted support for it. I found it useful and had no problems paying.

The software I use to pirate (had gigs full) I never planned to purchase. If I could not of got a pirated copy I would of simply done without. It was nothing I ever intended to truly purchase. But it was there, I could use it for something, it was free for the taking...so why not! :) No sale was lost. I had no intentions of buying it in the first place...

Price makes a difference??? maybe...for the outragously priced stuff...maybe...
One of the most pirated software packages that I know of is Corel Paint Shop Pro. You might want to look up what the price on that is. Yet they come out with a new version often, offer a great "upgrade" price.... :)

Now music.....that may be different altogether.....probably is. Do people pirate music and cause lost sales because they would of bought it otherwise. Quite possibly.

natedawg
February 6th, 2007, 05:45 AM
To make a long story short...No, I would not pay for software on Linux. One of the main reason I use Linux in the first place is because it is free. I don't have a lot of cash to dish out on software.
The last software I paid for was an FPS game about four years ago... since then I haven't spent a dime on software and I get by just fine.

I don't mind programs being closed source like drivers or programs such as Googles Picasa but the second they require payment you can bet I won't use it.

Don't get me wrong I do give support to programs I like, by buying merchandise or giving affordable donations when I can.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 05:51 AM
I don't condone piracy, but debates about whether it's "stealing" or not are a matter of semantics. Some call it stealing because you're getting something you didn't pay for but should have paid for. Others call it not stealing because you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so it's not a lost sale to the company. Bottom line: it's illegal, whether you call it "stealing" or not.

That said, while the legality is pretty clear cut, the net effect (positive/negative) piracy has on a company isn't so clear cut.

According to this article (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html), Bill Gates would rather have you pirate Windows than not use it at all:

Oh it is illegal and I do not agree with it. I cannot say it is truly stealing and I find the term "pirate" and "piracy" to be hilarious... But no I do not agree with it at all and I did not bother with it long. Just long enough to realize that I may of been being "played" by a company who wanted me to pirate and make them popular anyway. That is when I started realizing that software/computers is often about control, not outright money, but control and power and that is when I turned back to linux and tried again and started learnign about free software and found that it was the solution..... No sneakiness, no underhanded ploy, no control, just good software - yummy!

aysiu
February 6th, 2007, 06:00 AM
Oh it is illegal and I do not agree with it. Just to clarify, since you were responding to my post, I wasn't trying to suggest software piracy was legal or that I agreed with it. In fact, I think I said pretty much what you said--whatever you call it (stealing/not stealing), it is illegal.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 06:11 AM
and I was pretty much agreeing with you :) Loved the quote!!!! Sort of proved my point that often companies expect this and hope to capitalize on it - the popularity is what is important.

If piracy affected a company that badly - how is microsoft in such good shape? :D

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 06:19 AM
I cannot say it is truly stealing and I find the term "pirate" and "piracy" to be hilarious...
Reading that, I was totally reminded of this bash.org quote (http://bash.org/?652012).

aysiu
February 6th, 2007, 06:20 AM
I thought you were agreeing with me. Just wanted to clarify, in case I was reading you wrong.

There are two things I get from that Bill Gates quotation: sales are important. After all, if they can get money from you... why not get money? But vendor lock-in is just as (if not more) important.

This issue came up once when I was discussing Firefox v. Internet Explorer with my wife a couple of years ago. She asked, "Why do those companies care so much? The programs are free." I had to think about it and come up with some weird speculations. Now that Firefox is making millions off of Google, it becomes a little clearer, but it is a good question. I guess my initial speculation wasn't too off. When you get people hooked on your free software, you have control over what they can and can't do, and you have more leverage with third-party vendors who want to interface with your application.

Of course, the beauty of open source is that even if you get used to Ubuntu's way of doing things, they don't have vendor lock-in. Don't like Ubuntu's new direction? Fork it. Or use a fork of it.

loserboy
February 6th, 2007, 06:24 AM
careful deanlinkous I can see aysiu's cat getting angry, you dont want that to happen....

:)

loserboy
February 6th, 2007, 06:26 AM
There are two things I get from that Bill Gates quotation: sales are important. After all, if they can get money from you... why not get money? But vendor lock-in is just as (if not more) important.

This issue came up once when I was discussing Firefox v. Internet Explorer with my wife a couple of years ago. She asked, "Why do those companies care so much? The programs are free." I had to think about it and come up with some weird speculations. Now that Firefox is making millions off of Google, it becomes a little clearer, but it is a good question. I guess my initial speculation wasn't too off. When you get people hooked on your free software, you have control over what they can and can't do, and you have more leverage with third-party vendors who want to interface with your application.

Of course, the beauty of open source is that even if you get used to Ubuntu's way of doing things, they don't have vendor lock-in. Don't like Ubuntu's new direction? Fork it. Or use a fork of it.


thats a really interesting point

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 06:40 AM
I thought you were agreeing with me. Just wanted to clarify, in case I was reading you wrong.

There are two things I get from that Bill Gates quotation: sales are important. After all, if they can get money from you... why not get money? But vendor lock-in is just as (if not more) important.

This issue came up once when I was discussing Firefox v. Internet Explorer with my wife a couple of years ago. She asked, "Why do those companies care so much? The programs are free." I had to think about it and come up with some weird speculations. Now that Firefox is making millions off of Google, it becomes a little clearer, but it is a good question. I guess my initial speculation wasn't too off. When you get people hooked on your free software, you have control over what they can and can't do, and you have more leverage with third-party vendors who want to interface with your application.

Of course, the beauty of open source is that even if you get used to Ubuntu's way of doing things, they don't have vendor lock-in. Don't like Ubuntu's new direction? Fork it. Or use a fork of it.
I just wanted to clarify your clarification! :)

Vendor lock-in is a type of control. So is forced upgrades. Actually anything proprietary (closed) is about control. Either control they want OVER you or at the least control they want to remove from you. Sony rootkit anyone... That is why it is a ethical/moral issue is because controlling people or taking away control is a ethical issue not just a technical one.

Free (as in freedom) software means users keep control. Doesn't mean they have to take advantage of the control but it is there and can never be removed. Dont like how it works then no need to even fork. Just modify what you do not like about it for yourself and be happy. Power to the people. That is why I love free (as in freedom) software - I am in control not Sony, thank GNU! :)

Mr Nick
February 6th, 2007, 07:03 AM
Try to go out and sell your ideas, and see how much money you can make.
I have a friend who does just that, and makes a very good living doing it. He is so much in demand that companies pay his air fee on top of his regular fee to other parts of the country.

Sunnz
February 6th, 2007, 07:13 AM
I just wanted to clarify your clarification! :)

Vendor lock-in is a type of control. So is forced upgrades. Actually anything proprietary (closed) is about control. Either control they want OVER you or at the least control they want to remove from you. Sony rootkit anyone... That is why it is a ethical/moral issue is because controlling people or taking away control is a ethical issue not just a technical one.

Free (as in freedom) software means users keep control. Doesn't mean they have to take advantage of the control but it is there and can never be removed. Dont like how it works then no need to even fork. Just modify what you do not like about it for yourself and be happy. Power to the people. That is why I love free (as in freedom) software - I am in control not Sony, thank GNU! :)
So now GNU is in control?

In the FLOSS world, developers don't necessarily develop what users want, but what they want, whereas with propriety companies, they develop software to meet demands of people and sell it...

Customers are not necessarily lost all the control with propriety software. But with FLOSS, if you don't know how to code or don't have the time, it is entirely up to the unpaid developer.

But of course you can pay someone to fork FLOSS software.

aysiu
February 6th, 2007, 07:21 AM
In the FLOSS world, developers don't necessarily develop what users want, but what they want, whereas with propriety companies, they develop software to meet demands of people and sell it... You mean when users want to be able to receive Windows updates without having to prove to Microsoft over and over again how authentic their installations are, Microsoft is going to listen to them because that's what the users want?

You mean when users want to be able to play their iTunes-purchased songs on as many computers as they own, Apple's going to listen to them because that's what the users want?

I'll tell you that at work we use a proprietary database, and the vendor strongly discourages our tech staff from making user-friendly modifications to the program and charges a lot of for "extra" features that give users basic functionality.

Propriety isn't about making things easy for users (why else would Windows come without an office suite?) but making things easily available for users... as long as they pay and/or stay.

steven8
February 6th, 2007, 07:27 AM
why else would Windows come without an office suite?

I have installed windows for quite a few people, and they are always astonished that Office programs aren't 'just there'.

Vendor lock-in. . .don't leave home without it!

-Ghost9-
February 6th, 2007, 07:01 PM
i'm just going to chime in real quick on the stealing. It has more to do with intellectual property than anything since there's no physical good. But what you are doing is using their idea, their code etc. You may not have ever had the intention of paying for it, so you think they don't lose anything. However, if you aren't going to pay, you shouldn't be able to use. Where it hurts them is that they didn't get the money for you using it. Just because you never intended to pay for it doesn't mean it doesn't hurt them. If someone wants to even try the program, they need to pay for it. By not paying for it you are taking away a sale, the sale where you should have purchased. If you don't intend to pay for it, then you shouldn't intend to use it. It's the idea, not the physical good. Kinda like how patents and trademarks work. It hurts any company if people start using their products for free. That's the whole idea behind the marketplace. You pay for what you use. If people use without paying, that's stealing. You can go on and on that you were never going to buy it, but are you sure? What if you became so enticed by the idea of the program you finally broke down and bought it? Never say never. Cause if you didn't have the illegal option of pirating software, you don't really know what you would do.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Yes I can say I would of never bought it. I wasn't really thirsty, but there was a ice cold beer on the counter. I didn't need it. Heck, I didn't really want it. But it was there for the taking so why not... Nobody was around, it did not involve any effort to get it, I wasn't going to get caught, why not grab it....

Now of course that is not a analogy to software just involve some of the same ideas...

If it is true that I would of never bought the software, I would of simply done without or used something else. And I assure you this is true of a lot of software "pirates" who have gigs of "booty" yet rarely even use it if they use it at all. But they have it because it was so easy to get. Please tell me what the company has lost? Something REAL they have lost. What did it actually cost them?

They do not get the money for you "using" it. They get a sale of a product. If they got money for "usage" then certainly someone who pays $50 and uses it 80 hours a week is a pirate compared to a person paying $50 and only usesit one hour a month.

I use to have tons of "illegal" software. Most any tech major either has it or has access to someone that has it. I did not use half of it and the half I did actually install might of been used a handful of times. If I did not have something I needed then I simply used something else. I did not have that cool visio for a while so I used and learned DIA and did just fine. Once visio was "available" then I had it and probably used it twice.

All I am simply saying is that every pirated copy does not equal a actual lost sale.

(and so I will stop running around the tree over and over) :)

Sunnz
February 6th, 2007, 07:59 PM
You mean when users want to be able to receive Windows updates without having to prove to Microsoft over and over again how authentic their installations are, Microsoft is going to listen to them because that's what the users want?NO. Hell NO. You might think I meant ALL propriety software listen to their user then just go pick one that does the oppose, but that's no what I meant, and I hope you can understand.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 08:04 PM
Well, different proprietary software is not really different at all. The proprietary part is the problem, it is a form of control in and of itself. Microsoft is just the epitome of proprietary....you should not dismiss all those others that would be just like them if they had the chance......

No proprietary software listens to ONE user, only if it is going to affect their control will they listen to even a group of users.

doobit
February 6th, 2007, 08:14 PM
I think I posted this here already, but I have paid for FOSS before, and I will continue to pay if I think it will help develope software that I need.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 08:15 PM
So now GNU is in control?

How is GNU in control? Just because you do not exercise your control does not mean you do not have it. It also does not mean you should be willing to give it up because then you may be taking it away from others, or you may want it in the future...

GNU or the GPL is not about control, it is only about just enough requirements to make sure YOU are in control of your computer/software.

-Ghost9-
February 6th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Please tell me what the company has lost? Something REAL they have lost. What did it actually cost them?

To create a program/product, it requires time and money. This is an investment. If people use their product without paying for it, that company is not getting a return on their investment. They lost all that time and money because people used it without giving them what is rightfully owed. The company REALLY lost money on that situation. It COST them time and money to create that program. There is more cost involved than just a sale. This is not like a tangible good where materials are included in a cost.



They do not get the money for you "using" it. They get a sale of a product. If they got money for "usage" then certainly someone who pays $50 and uses it 80 hours a week is a pirate compared to a person paying $50 and only usesit one hour a month.

Incorrect. They do get money for you using it. It's called a license. You purchase a license to use it. When you buy programs you purchase a license that allows a certain number of users to use it on a certain number of systems. You cannot lay claim to the program itself, only the ability to legally use it.



I use to have tons of "illegal" software. Most any tech major either has it or has access to someone that has it. I did not use half of it and the half I did actually install might of been used a handful of times. If I did not have something I needed then I simply used something else. I did not have that cool visio for a while so I used and learned DIA and did just fine. Once visio was "available" then I had it and probably used it twice.

Doesn't really matter how often you use it or what you use it for. The fact is that it is not yours to use.



All I am simply saying is that every pirated copy does not equal a actual lost sale.

I can see why you say that, but at the same time it's not completely correct. A more correct statement would be that it "may" not equal an actual lost sale. I'll say again, you purchase a license to use that program. If you use it without purchase, then you are not giving that company their due, and all that time and finance they put into creating a product/program is not returned to them.


I'm trying to think of a good analogy. Lets say you go to an arcade. It's completely empty and noone is around for miles. There's a game that looks interesting. You don't want to pay for the game, but you want to play it. You find a way to hot-wire the machine so that you can play without putting any coins in. You play the game through to the end without paying a dime and then return the machine to it's original state where people have to pay to play. What did the game company lose? What did the arcade lose? Noone else was around, noone was going to play while you were playing, and anyone can still play any time they want... Now I don't know exactly how the arcade financing works, but the arcade(a distributor) lost out on what should have been a sale, since they take a chunk of it. The game lost out on what should have been a sale. You used and played the game, you should have had to pay. You see, you don't pay for the actual physical game. You pay for the experience. You now stole that experience. That company put time, energy, and money into creating that experience and they lost some of that because you didn't pay. Now whether or not you ever intended to pay for it really doesn't matter. What matters is that you used it.

Ok so that's not really the best analogy. You won't ever really understand until you have a product of your own. For me, a graphic design, intellectual property is a hot button. If I create a logo and trademark it/copyright it, then noone else should have it unless they pay me for using it, regardless of whether or not they want to or intend to. My logo should not appear on t-shirts or anything else unless i'm paid for it. It was my idea, my design, my work, my sweat, my investment. If everyone started using my designs for free, then I never end up making money and that hurts me, the company.

Sunnz
February 6th, 2007, 08:38 PM
Ok, I don't really mean that GNU is controlling everything... but they are pushing their ideal world. (Not exactly a bad thing.)

Practically, how many of us are programmers?
-- How many of programmers actually develop software?
--- And how many actually have the time to develop code for their own use in their free time?

That said, propriety software doesn't help, does it?

However, as a user, even when we are given the right to control, we often don't have to ability in the first place. We can only choose what's already out there. Running propriety software on FOSS platform may not be ideal, but that could be what users are stuck on sometimes. In this sense the openness of the software it comes in becomes irrelevant, but the cost is when there are alternative, and it happens that free software usually doesn't cost anything... but I think people should still weight the cost and benefit of the software too.

But then it comes the quality of software, which one is more efficient? What model of development will result a more secure system?

lyceum
February 6th, 2007, 08:42 PM
I would, and I have. I would want to use it first, but if I would rather pay for a program where I can see and the code, because then it is mine, not just rented. (my point of view). I think that at some point, FOSS will be sold, as there is more dedication to the software if it becomes a full time job. Sadly, not everyone that uses contributes.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 08:44 PM
To create a program/product, it requires time and money. This is an investment. If people use their product without paying for it, that company is not getting a return on their investment. They lost all that time and money because people used it without giving them what is rightfully owed. The company REALLY lost money on that situation. It COST them time and money to create that program. There is more cost involved than just a sale. This is not like a tangible good where materials are included in a cost.


Thats right it is not a tangible good but the thing you are forgetting is that unlike tangible goods ONE software creation is sold over and over again. So total "material" cost was spread over every sale not on a per sale basis. If they had not developed it then they would not of sold ANYTHING. They only created it ONCE and then they sold it repeatedly. There was no devlopement cost per copy. Only a overall cost and without doing that they would not of sold even one. :) So my :illegal" copy cost them nothing to make above and beyond what they would of spent for the "legal" customers.

Dang i am running around the tree again and I am afraid I do not have time... good discussion everyone!

Sunnz
February 6th, 2007, 08:46 PM
To create a program/product, it requires time and money. This is an investment. If people use their product without paying for it, that company is not getting a return on their investment. They lost all that time and money because people used it without giving them what is rightfully owed. The company REALLY lost money on that situation. It COST them time and money to create that program. There is more cost involved than just a sale. This is not like a tangible good where materials are included in a cost.



Incorrect. They do get money for you using it. It's called a license. You purchase a license to use it. When you buy programs you purchase a license that allows a certain number of users to use it on a certain number of systems. You cannot lay claim to the program itself, only the ability to legally use it.



Doesn't really matter how often you use it or what you use it for. The fact is that it is not yours to use.



I can see why you say that, but at the same time it's not completely correct. A more correct statement would be that it "may" not equal an actual lost sale. I'll say again, you purchase a license to use that program. If you use it without purchase, then you are not giving that company their due, and all that time and finance they put into creating a product/program is not returned to them.


I'm trying to think of a good analogy. Lets say you go to an arcade. It's completely empty and noone is around for miles. There's a game that looks interesting. You don't want to pay for the game, but you want to play it. You find a way to hot-wire the machine so that you can play without putting any coins in. You play the game through to the end without paying a dime and then return the machine to it's original state where people have to pay to play. What did the game company lose? What did the arcade lose? Noone else was around, noone was going to play while you were playing, and anyone can still play any time they want... Now I don't know exactly how the arcade financing works, but the arcade(a distributor) lost out on what should have been a sale, since they take a chunk of it. The game lost out on what should have been a sale. You used and played the game, you should have had to pay. You see, you don't pay for the actual physical game. You pay for the experience. You now stole that experience. That company put time, energy, and money into creating that experience and they lost some of that because you didn't pay. Now whether or not you ever intended to pay for it really doesn't matter. What matters is that you used it.

Ok so that's not really the best analogy. You won't ever really understand until you have a product of your own. For me, a graphic design, intellectual property is a hot button. If I create a logo and trademark it/copyright it, then noone else should have it unless they pay me for using it, regardless of whether or not they want to or intend to. My logo should not appear on t-shirts or anything else unless i'm paid for it. It was my idea, my design, my work, my sweat, my investment. If everyone started using my designs for free, then I never end up making money and that hurts me, the company.
I don't think he is saying that pirate is the right thing to do or legal.

He's saying that if he can't run the software in any way, he will either 1) use a free alternative, 2) not bother with it anyway.

So if the software company created their software in such a way so that he can't run it without paying, he wouldn't pay to run it anyway - either way, the said company isn't going to get a cent from him.

If the arcade was designed in such a way that you can't hot wire it, then he will just go away and not bother with it - either way, that coin isn't going into the machine anyway.

-Ghost9-
February 6th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Thats right it is not a tangible good but the thing you are forgetting is that unlike tangible goods ONE software creation is sold over and over again. So total "material" cost was spread over every sale not on a per sale basis. If they had not developed it then they would not of sold ANYTHING. They only created it ONCE and then they sold it repeatedly. There was no devlopement cost per copy. Only a overall cost and without doing that they would not of sold even one. :) So my :illegal" copy cost them nothing to make above and beyond what they would of spent for the "legal" customers.

Dang i am running around the tree again and I am afraid I do not have time... good discussion everyone!

That argument doesn't make sense. You think that since they sell copies of the same product that it never cost them anything? It costs them close to nothing to copy it, but to create it the cost is extremely high. You think that all that money they invested in it is made back after a few sales of the product? If they were to make a profit on just one sale, the price would be astronomical. The reason programs are sold for a seemingly low amount of money is because they will sell mass quantities of it. They are not selling "copies" per say. They are selling the program. Yes they only made it once but that one time is a huge amount of effort and to make a profit they need to sell many many copies of it.

If one copy of the game was the price of what it cost to make the program, each program would end up costing thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. The development cost is spread out over the copies, not the physical act of copying.

I don't understand how you think that each individual copy is worthless. Of course if they never developed it they would never have sold anything. What is that sentence even trying to say. If you never make anything you can't sell it? no duh.

-Ghost9-
February 6th, 2007, 09:02 PM
I don't think he is saying that pirate is the right thing to do or legal.

He's saying that if he can't run the software in any way, he will either 1) use a free alternative, 2) not bother with it anyway.

So if the software company created their software in such a way so that he can't run it without paying, he wouldn't pay to run it anyway - either way, the said company isn't going to get a cent from him.

If the arcade was designed in such a way that you can't hot wire it, then he will just go away and not bother with it - either way, that coin isn't going into the machine anyway.

So you're saying that if someone steals your bike it's your fault because you should've put a better lock on it?

lyceum
February 6th, 2007, 09:09 PM
Thats right it is not a tangible good but the thing you are forgetting is that unlike tangible goods ONE software creation is sold over and over again. So total "material" cost was spread over every sale not on a per sale basis. If they had not developed it then they would not of sold ANYTHING. They only created it ONCE and then they sold it repeatedly. There was no devlopement cost per copy. Only a overall cost and without doing that they would not of sold even one. :) So my :illegal" copy cost them nothing to make above and beyond what they would of spent for the "legal" customers.

Dang i am running around the tree again and I am afraid I do not have time... good discussion everyone!

To butt into the conversation...

There is one thing being left out here, support and bug fixes. Ghost9 is right, and looking at things from an artist's perspective. I cannot draw if my kids can't eat, so if you do not pay for the logo, I can't make more.

Yes, deanlinkous is right, it is one set of codes that runs the program being sold over and over again, just like it is one picture on the tee shirt being sold over and over again.

The diference is that if I want to rip the tee shirt or bleach it or paint over it I can. If I want to cut out the picture and sow it onto the back of a jacket, I can. With proprietary software, I cannot edit the code in any way.

The picture is done, we will never know if the artist will make something as good as the last logo again. It will sell until no one cares and people will move on to the next fad. However, the software is never perfect. If it is paid for there can be more focus on bug fixes and improvements. If the code is open, others can help and I can do my own, but only if I know how. There needs to be a way for the common person to get things fixed, which is support.

This can come through donations, but how many people really donate? If it is free that is great, I will use it. If it costs $$'s it had better be a level above anything you can get for free. Is it worth $800? Depends on what I use it for. If GIMP was open, as it is now, and just as good as Photoshop, I would gladly pay the same price for it, as I would need it to make a living and it leaves the code open. Would it sell? I am sure anyone who could not get the code and compile it themselves would buy it. But I would be confident that as long as I an giving money the bug fixes will be there for a while longer.

Keeping the code open/free does not mean it needs to be free (as in $$'s).

lyceum
February 6th, 2007, 09:13 PM
So you're saying that if someone steals your bike it's your fault because you should've put a better lock on it?

No, he is saying that if the bike wasn't there he wouldn't steel it ;) (sorry, couldn't resist the urge to be sarcastic)

Sunnz
February 6th, 2007, 09:14 PM
So you're saying that if someone steals your bike it's your fault because you should've put a better lock on it?
No. Read my message again and make sure you don't just skim it

aysiu
February 6th, 2007, 09:16 PM
I don't think there's going to be any convincing either way. If you believe the unauthorized taking of something for free that would ordinarily cost money is not stealing, no one is going to be able to argue you out of it. You've already justified it in your mind. You're going to pirate software you didn't buy. You're going to sneak into a half-empty movie theater because "they're showing it anyway, regardless of whether I'm there or not."

I happen to believe in paying for what you use. Have I ever stolen software in the past? Sure. Am I proud of it? Nope. Do I justify it? Nope. I'm just glad there is free and cheap software available that suits my needs.

While there is a certain degree to which piracy can actually benefit the company "losing" a sale, there is also a saturation point. This is why--before Napster--recording companies didn't really seem to mind people making mix tapes or mix CDs. In fact, these probably boosted sales for them. But once you get out of the "free sample" area into the "free anything" area, that's when companies who base sales on product sales (and not service sales--like Ubuntu and a lot of other Linux companies) start losing money.

What's that expression about not wanting to buy the cow if you get the milk for free...? Something like that.

While I admire people who want to open source their software and also make it cost-free, I don't believe it's up to us as consumers to force people to make their products free if the original license isn't that way. If you want to support open source and/or free software, support it. Don't pirate proprietary software. In fact, as I quoted from Bill Gates earlier, many companies would prefer you pirate their software to using open source software.

As to the remark about open source not benefiting the end user who doesn't program, I strongly disagree with that. I am not a programmer. I don't compile anything. I don't know any programming languages. And I don't ever download the source code for any program and look at it or modify it. There are still, for me as an end user, several benefits to using open source:

1. Open source tends to be cost-free or at least cheap. I haven't run into any open source programs that are US$1500. I've seen plenty of proprietary programs that cost that much, though, if not several hundred dollars. All the open source programs I use (both in Ubuntu at home and in Windows at work) are all cost-free. I think this may be an indirect result of the source being open. After all, people like me can't compile the source code, but if the source code is available, one cannot possible charge $1500 for the binary, since someone is bound to fork the source and sell it for cheaper or give it away for free. The very openness of the code demands the price be reasonable or free.

2. Open source tends to be trustworthy. I've yet to encounter any open source program with spyware or adware. Even popularity-contest, which some paranoid people think is spyware, is opt-in. I've never run into a program that gives me endless pop-ups or an abundance of folders that serve no purpose and cannot be deleted. I think this stems from two parts of open source--one being that open source tends to attract a lot of good-hearted people, not just people who are after only profit; the other being that the source code is available, so sneaky backdoors can be seen by those who do examine source code.

3. Open source dies only if there's no interest in the product. If a proprietary company stops supporting its product, you've just got to find something else. If, on the other hand, a few developers of an open source project ditch the product, other developers can pick up where they left off. I'm not sure if this one makes that much difference in real life, but it sounds good in theory at least.

4. Open source often gives you several options. Some people hate all the forking, but I love it! Don't like Firefox? You can use Swiftfox or Flock. Don't like Ubuntu? You can use Mepis or Linux Mint. Contrary to what some uninformed critics say, forking is not reinventing the wheel. Warren Woodford did not create Mepis from scratch. Nor did the Ubuntu developers and Mark Shuttleworth create Ubuntu from scratch. There may be some duplication of efforts for slightly different implementations of things, but for the most part people "stand on the shoulders of giants."

Those are at least four benefits I--as a non-programmer and end user--see from open source.

-Ghost9-
February 6th, 2007, 09:23 PM
No. Read my message again and make sure you don't just skim it

I did read it. I read it three times.


So if the software company created their software in such a way so that he can't run it without paying, he wouldn't pay to run it anyway - either way, the said company isn't going to get a cent from him.

I read this as, if the company had made it unpiratable, then he won't be able to use it and wouldn't buy it anyway.
That's like saying, if I made my bike unstealable, then that guy won't take it and he won't buy one either. So somehow if he does steal it, it's my fault not his. So when does the criminal get held accountable for his actions?

0815-neuling
February 6th, 2007, 09:51 PM
Yes, I would. There are pieces of software, that can hardly be made under gpl. "Open Software" heavily relies on the existance of a community to develop it. For mainstream programs like an office suite or an operating system, this isn't a problem at all, but when it comes to ocr for example, useful gpl software is simply unavailable. Also software, that needs a certain amount of maintanance like anti-virus-software, cannot really be provided by a community.

What I really do not support are proprietary standards. They lead to natural monopolies. Therefore, it would really be a huge benefit for whole mankind (in my oppinion), if there would be good alternatives to Flash, for example.

lyceum
February 6th, 2007, 09:52 PM
As to the remark about open source not benefiting the end user who doesn't program, I strongly disagree with that.

Sorry if I miss spoke, I was not saying that FOSS did not benifit non-coders, as I am still learning how to code, I also fit into that area. I was comenting that I cannot make my own improvements or do my own bug fixes, so I would be willing to pay for a program, so that money can got towards the bug fixes and improvments to the program. Just pointing to a benifit to paying.

Otherwise, good points.

deanlinkous
February 6th, 2007, 09:53 PM
Keeping the code open does not mean it needs to be free. as in cost...

free(as in freedom) software is never about cost

Great discussion guys.....everyone.... Gotta run, will come back and freak you all out later. :)

ZylGadis
February 6th, 2007, 09:54 PM
I am a software developer. I believe that the phrase "Intellectual property" is a contradiction by the definitions of intellect and property, and I believe that all the people who continuously equate material goods (hardware, cars, bikes) to informational ones (software, music, movies) just have to die out. Quietly, if possible.

Once people understand we live in the information age, they will find new ways to support themselves (and the corresponding new laws), as opposed to trying to force the old ways onto the new state of the world.

Information is not property. It cannot be property, because you can give it to someone, and it still remains with you. It is that simple.

On topic: I would gladly buy Free/Libre software. I have never paid for proprietary software, barring the Windows that came with my laptop, and I am proud of that.

prizrak
February 6th, 2007, 09:56 PM
I did read it. I read it three times.



I read this as, if the company had made it unpiratable, then he won't be able to use it and wouldn't buy it anyway.
That's like saying, if I made my bike unstealable, then that guy won't take it and he won't buy one either. So somehow if he does steal it, it's my fault not his. So when does the criminal get held accountable for his actions?

One thing you can never use is physical examples in the virtual realm. If someone steals your bike, you are missing a bike plain and simple. If someone takes your bike and makes an exact copy of it you have two bikes.

I don't remember who said it (or even the exact quote) but here it is: "If I have an apple and you have an apple and we exchange them, each of us will have an apple. If you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange them each of us will have two ideas." This is a good way of showing the difference between physical and virtual (intellectual) property.

While copyright infringement is illegal (at the very least) you cannot equate every act of it as a lost sale. I for one will not buy Vista, I have XP (that works fine) and Ubuntu (works even better) and will not spend my money on Vista. MS is not getting any money from me for it. If I were to pirate it (I'm not going to btw) MS still wouldn't get any money from me. Did they lose a sale? No they did not because there wasn't gonna be a sale in the first place.

Now if there was no way to pirate Vista I still wouldn't use it. I'd stick to XP or Ubuntu or go buy a Mac (I hate them and still think they are better than Vista) but I would not buy Vista. Now this is not the same as saying
That's like saying, if I made my bike unstealable, then that guy won't take it and he won't buy one either. So somehow if he does steal it, it's my fault not his.
It's basically that the company was never going to get my money in the first place. I am not saying that it makes piracy OK, I'm simply saying that the idea that every pirated copy = lost sale is faulty at best.

Just to reiterate aysiu's point, in some cases piracy is actually good for the company. If Windows wasn't pirateable it would never have the same amount of users it does now. From personal experience I can guarantee that about 1-2 people in the former Soviet block would have bought it back in 95 for the price that it was. If it weren't for easily pirateable Windows, Linux would have been used by pretty much everyone outside of NATO block + Japan.

Back on topic. I bought RedHat before (it sucked), I would have bought SLED10 as well if the demo ever managed to install (three wasted DVD's) and actually turned out to be a good product.

aysiu
February 6th, 2007, 09:57 PM
Sorry if I miss spoke, I was not saying that FOSS did not benifit non-coders, as I am still learning how to code, I also fit into that area. I was comenting that I cannot make my own improvements or do my own bug fixes, so I would be willing to pay for a program, so that money can got towards the bug fixes and improvments to the program. Just pointing to a benifit to paying. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about to whom I was responding. I was actually responding to Sunnz's post (as quoted below):

Customers are not necessarily lost all the control with propriety software. But with FLOSS, if you don't know how to code or don't have the time, it is entirely up to the unpaid developer.

0815-neuling
February 6th, 2007, 10:02 PM
3. Open source dies only if there's no interest in the product. If a proprietary company stops supporting its product, you've just got to find something else. If, on the other hand, a few developers of an open source project ditch the product, other developers can pick up where they left off. I'm not sure if this one makes that much difference in real life, but it sounds good in theory at least.


If there is not enougth interest in using that program, i wonder if there would be enough enthusiasm to develop it ... and proprietary software often turns open-source, when they fail in the market. The most known example for that is probably mozilla which is a derivative of netscape - I think.

lyceum
February 6th, 2007, 10:04 PM
as in cost...

free(as in freedom) software is never about cost

Great discussion guys.....everyone.... Gotta run, will come back and freak you all out later. :)

From the FSF:



We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.

``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.


If you "charge a fee for distribution", it is not free (as in $$'s). And if you make it and others make $$'s and you do not, you got ripped off My opinion).

prizrak
February 6th, 2007, 10:04 PM
I'm sorry I wasn't clear about to whom I was responding. I was actually responding to Sunnz's post (as quoted below):

You forgot open standards that benefit you as a non-coder. FLOSS software operates under open standards (by the very nature of it). That gives a huge benefit of not having to depend on only one piece of software. Open standards can be implemented in any software meaning your data is never going to be left unreadable.

prizrak
February 6th, 2007, 10:07 PM
From the FSF:



If you "charge a fee for distribution", it is not free.

No, you misread it. It clearly states quite the opposite. You can charge for distribution (in fact RMS used to) but you MUST provide the source code. I can't sell you a CD with Open Office on it and not give you the source either on the CD itself or if there is not enough space via a free download. That doesn't mean I cannot possibly charge you.

lyceum
February 6th, 2007, 10:11 PM
No, you misread it. It clearly states quite the opposite. You can charge for distribution (in fact RMS used to) but you MUST provide the source code. I can't sell you a CD with Open Office on it and not give you the source either on the CD itself or if there is not enough space via a free download. That doesn't mean I cannot possibly charge you.

Actually, that is my point. You pay, you get the WHOLE product, even the code. But my point was that the FSF is okay with the idea of selling software.

*sigh* free is free and free is not free. I think free has too many meanings. Can we use the word smurf instead? ;)

kebes
February 6th, 2007, 10:17 PM
software, that needs a certain amount of maintanance like anti-virus-software, cannot really be provided by a community.

Just as a side-note, there is an open-source, community-driven anti-virus software product:
http://www.clamav.net/

It can be useful if you're running a Linux server that provides fileshares to Windows computers, to protect them from the spread of network viruses. Also there is a program called "ClamWin" that provides open-source anti-virus detection on Windows. This is a community-driven project that writes and provides new virus definitions.


Information is not property.

I strongly agree with this. I'm not saying people shouldn't be paid for hard work, but I don't think they "own" any resulting ephemeral constructs.

-Ghost9-
February 6th, 2007, 10:55 PM
One thing you can never use is physical examples in the virtual realm. If someone steals your bike, you are missing a bike plain and simple. If someone takes your bike and makes an exact copy of it you have two bikes.

In this post i was dealing more with the liability/responsibility/fault. I dealt with the whole physical vs non-physical thing in other posts.

KaroSHiv0n
February 6th, 2007, 11:20 PM
If the software did something i needed it to do and there was nothing else that did it. then yes, as long as it was reasonably priced.

Sunnz
February 7th, 2007, 05:46 AM
I did read it. I read it three times.



I read this as, if the company had made it unpiratable, then he won't be able to use it and wouldn't buy it anyway.Yes, so either way, the company isn't getting that dollar.

That's like saying, if I made my bike unstealable, then that guy won't take it and he won't buy one either.Yes, so no one is getting that dollar from him rather or not the bike is stealable


So somehow if he does steal it, it's my fault not his. So when does the criminal get held accountable for his actions?No I never said anything like that, he is still guilty.

It is just that if he illegally, wrongfully, unethically, steals your bike, he definitely would not have pay you anything. If he couldn't steal your bike, he isn't going to buy it anyway.

So either way, you would not see money going from his pocket to your pocket.

steven8
February 7th, 2007, 05:59 AM
So somehow if he does steal it, it's my fault not his. So when does the criminal get held accountable for his actions?

This is not just a question in software circles. When I worked in the machine shop, I locked my toolbox when I went home at night, and unlocked it each morning when I got to work. During the day some day, someone stole a whole drawer full of my air tools. Quite a lot of money in those. I went to the plant manager, thinking the captain would take responsibility for the actions of his crew. However, I was told I had to lock and unlock my drawers everytime I took something out. Otherwise, basically, it was my fault the tools got stolen.

I asked him if, say, he ran over to his neighbor's house for 5 minutes, didn't lock the door, and came back to find his T.V., VCR and microwave gone, would he then say, "Oh well, it's my fault for not locking the door.", and not do anything. He told me that was irrelevant. Go figger.

If your car is stolen, an insurance company will blame you if the doors were not locked. Not that is was the other person's to have, but the right person doesn't always take the fall.

Sorry, got caught up and forgot to answer the actual question. Of course I would pay for Linux software, if I wanted it and had the money. Not even a question.

deanlinkous
February 7th, 2007, 07:30 AM
Actually, that is my point. You pay, you get the WHOLE product, even the code. But my point was that the FSF is okay with the idea of selling software.

*sigh* free is free and free is not free. I think free has too many meanings. Can we use the word smurf instead? ;)

I thought that WAS what I said... :)
free (as in freedom) software is never about cost, it is about freedom
charge a million bucks for it if you wish, charge a million for the source code too IF you charged a million for the binary, charge for distribution if you wish.

------------

My point was not that it is okay to pirate, or that somehow it is not illegal, or that somehow they deserve it....

My main point was that people often incorrectly assume that every illegal copy of XYZ exactly equals a lost sale of XYZ but that is rarely the case. Honestly, who would pay full price for MSoffice? People that truly need it, need support for it, those that have the money for it and those people would never think of using a illegal copy just to save their money. Now BOB has a illegal copy, if he could of never got the illegal copy then he would of simply used openoffice. He never had intentions of paying hundreds of dollars for office software just so he can create a word document that lists his favorit pr0n sites. So no sale is lost by bob using a illegal copy. He actually cost them nothing. A pirated copy did not cost them any more manpower or "materials" if you will because that was already a known cost. It was a certain amount of devlopment and man power to have a product to sale.

I never felt right when I use to collect illegal software. It always bothered me. Heck, nowadays if I seen a twenty on the street then I would leave it laying simply because it is not mine which means it must be someone elses and I do not have a right to it.

Oh well, we have beat this poor horse to death three times over....

As far as the OP, I think the question should be clarified as to what kind of commercial software we are talking about.

aysiu
February 7th, 2007, 07:33 AM
Honestly, who would pay full price for MSoffice? People that truly need it, need support for it, those that have the money for it and those people would never think of using a illegal copy just to save their money. Now BOB has a illegal copy, if he could of never got the illegal copy then he would of simply used openoffice. He never had intentions of paying hundreds of dollars for office software just so he can create a word document that lists his favorit pr0n sites. Based on the Windows users I know, I would strongly disagree with this example. The Windows users I know have no idea there is a free alternative to MS Office. If they couldn't pirate a copy, they would buy it.

And even a lot of people who do know about OpenOffice believe that it doesn't offer enough compatibility/functionality for their purposes (these tend to be Windows power users).

tacm
February 7th, 2007, 07:51 AM
YES. I have stated in the past I would be happy to pay for Ubuntu as well, I am here because I have personel issues with microsoft, but nothing in life is free and I would have no problems paying for top applications in Linux, quite specificly Autocad (HEY AUTODESK ARE YOU LISTENING????) :lolflag:

Sunnz
February 7th, 2007, 07:53 AM
As to the remark about open source not benefiting the end user who doesn't program, I strongly disagree with that. I am not a programmer. I don't compile anything. I don't know any programming languages. And I don't ever download the source code for any program and look at it or modify it. There are still, for me as an end user, several benefits to using open source:

1. Open source tends to be cost-free or at least cheap. I haven't run into any open source programs that are US$1500. I've seen plenty of proprietary programs that cost that much, though, if not several hundred dollars. All the open source programs I use (both in Ubuntu at home and in Windows at work) are all cost-free. I think this may be an indirect result of the source being open. After all, people like me can't compile the source code, but if the source code is available, one cannot possible charge $1500 for the binary, since someone is bound to fork the source and sell it for cheaper or give it away for free. The very openness of the code demands the price be reasonable or free.

2. Open source tends to be trustworthy. I've yet to encounter any open source program with spyware or adware. Even popularity-contest, which some paranoid people think is spyware, is opt-in. I've never run into a program that gives me endless pop-ups or an abundance of folders that serve no purpose and cannot be deleted. I think this stems from two parts of open source--one being that open source tends to attract a lot of good-hearted people, not just people who are after only profit; the other being that the source code is available, so sneaky backdoors can be seen by those who do examine source code.

3. Open source dies only if there's no interest in the product. If a proprietary company stops supporting its product, you've just got to find something else. If, on the other hand, a few developers of an open source project ditch the product, other developers can pick up where they left off. I'm not sure if this one makes that much difference in real life, but it sounds good in theory at least.

4. Open source often gives you several options. Some people hate all the forking, but I love it! Don't like Firefox? You can use Swiftfox or Flock. Don't like Ubuntu? You can use Mepis or Linux Mint. Contrary to what some uninformed critics say, forking is not reinventing the wheel. Warren Woodford did not create Mepis from scratch. Nor did the Ubuntu developers and Mark Shuttleworth create Ubuntu from scratch. There may be some duplication of efforts for slightly different implementations of things, but for the most part people "stand on the shoulders of giants."

Those are at least four benefits I--as a non-programmer and end user--see from open source.Woah, nicely said, I actually agree with most of it!:D

I like to clarify on my position though. I am not pro-propriety nor against the idea of FLOSS, I guess I did try to stir up the discussion a bit.

It may be a bit unclear in my previous post. I was taking a slight different view of FLOSS and Propriety software than anyone else

Basically, I was trying to say that process of software development is irrelevant to the end user if they don't involve in the development of the software, but it is the quality of the software that it relevant to the user. If you think of it this way, it doesn't really matter if the end user can see the source code or not, it is the quality of the software and the cost that matters most - a piece of the software being free and open source does not directly benefit the end user who can't make changes to it anyway.

However, it is the reasons you listed above that could have make the FLOSS a better software development model which results in higher quality code and better cost, which then this result offers better benefit to the end user.

BTW, #3 could possibly can a double edged sword. While a propriety product the discontinue its support forcing end users to go for something else, the same can happen to FLOSS software if there are no (too less) developers interested in picking up the project, e.g. HURD. Either way, there is no guarantee that a project will continue to "live"; on the other hand you could say a project/product will continue on as long as there are (FLOSS) enough developers picking it up or (propriety) enough consumers willing to pay for it that some company develops the technology to make some bucks.

dasunst3r
February 7th, 2007, 08:01 AM
I do that already for stuff I don't even have to pay for because I support their efforts and because I do find their software so good that it's worth paying for. The same will go towards commercial software, proprietary or not, so long as it respects me and does not treat me like a criminal.

MrHorus
February 7th, 2007, 09:31 AM
The question is very simple:

Would you ever pay for a commercial software for Linux, lets say if it was a good piece of software?

Of course.

Zend Development Environment is hands-down the best PHP IDE that I have had the pleasure of using.

It's written in Java and works exactly the same in Linux as it does in Windows and at $100 for a personal liscence it's a bargain IMO.

I know it's proprietry software but I am far more productive in it than any open sourced IDE that I have used.

az
February 7th, 2007, 12:39 PM
First off, there are some who seem to feel there is a crisis. Or perhaps that developermenet is being held back because of the licencing/development model. This is so untrue. If you look at the statistics, more and more lines of code (if that's all you want to measure) are being contributed to FLOSS than ever before.


So now GNU is in control?

In the FLOSS world, developers don't necessarily develop what users want, but what they want, whereas with propriety companies, they develop software to meet demands of people and sell it...

Customers are not necessarily lost all the control with propriety software. But with FLOSS, if you don't know how to code or don't have the time, it is entirely up to the unpaid developer.

But of course you can pay someone to fork FLOSS software.
1. GNU is only where the licencing comes from. There is no one single body that controls the code.

2. FLOSS development is marketing at its most pure form. Let the market decide. In a sense, the preffered security strategy will "bubble up" among the many other options. The same goes for most other concepts in development - all the choices are there, but the best/easiest/fastest one will be implemented. You don't get software that can turn on a dime and be as innovative from proprietary sources, by and large.

3. Not all developers are unpaid. In fact, regarding the kind of software we seem to be discussing, a recent study on European FLOSS marketshare shows that only 10 percent of paid fuill-time developpers work on proprietary shrink-wrapped software products. So 90 percent of the other developers work on software that is not sold. But they still earn their salary (which is equivalent to the other group's)



However, as a user, even when we are given the right to control, we often don't have to ability in the first place. We can only choose what's already out there.

...

But then it comes the quality of software, which one is more efficient? What model of development will result a more secure system?

Things are happening fast. The more marketshare FLOSS takes up, the more these projects get started and completed.


I would, and I have. I would want to use it first, but if I would rather pay for a program where I can see and the code, because then it is mine, not just rented. (my point of view). I think that at some point, FOSS will be sold, as there is more dedication to the software if it becomes a full time job. Sadly, not everyone that uses contributes.

Again, it's not neccessarily by paying more developers that FLOSS will get more code. People write good code for a lot of reasons. You probably end up writing better code when you do it to tackle one specific problem rather than work nine-to-five...



The reason programs are sold for a seemingly low amount of money is because they will sell mass quantities of it. They are not selling "copies" per say. They are selling the program. Yes they only made it once but that one time is a huge amount of effort and to make a profit they need to sell many many copies of it.


So, do you think the proprietary vendors are just breaking even?

They spend more on legal fees than developers.


. But I would be confident that as long as I an giving money the bug fixes will be there for a while longer.

Keeping the code open/free does not mean it needs to be free (as in $$'s).

Sure, but if a few million workstations run the software for business, and someone is already being paid to look after tham, and the bugs that are fixed there get filtered down to you, why should every end-user pay? FLOSS is really efficient in that it only takes one person to file a bug report and fix a probelm for everyone to eventually get the fix.



Yes, I would. There are pieces of software, that can hardly be made under gpl. "Open Software" heavily relies on the existance of a community to develop it. For mainstream programs like an office suite or an operating system, this isn't a problem at all, but when it comes to ocr for example, useful gpl software is simply unavailable. Also software, that needs a certain amount of maintanance like anti-virus-software, cannot really be provided by a community.

I strongly dissagree. In the case of OCR, the problem is marketshare. Just five years ago, people were saying the same thing about a lot of desktop software. These things tend to get done from one day to the next. You will wake up on emorning and someone will have released a whole OCR suite under the GPL and Wham! a community will flock around it.




What I really do not support are proprietary standards. They lead to natural monopolies. Therefore, it would really be a huge benefit for whole mankind (in my oppinion), if there would be good alternatives to Flash, for example.

People need to stand up and say that a closed proprietary flash (which can communicate with other web sites and presumably gather statistics about every page you visit that runs flash) is unacceptable. Not many people do, becaue they have no idea,

stig
February 7th, 2007, 12:51 PM
The question is very simple:

Would you ever pay for a commercial software for Linux, lets say if it was a good piece of software?

If you were referring to Ubuntu then I would say no, because Ubuntu claims it will always be free - and if you make claims then I believe you should keep to them.

deanlinkous
February 7th, 2007, 07:09 PM
Based on the Windows users I know, I would strongly disagree with this example. The Windows users I know have no idea there is a free alternative to MS Office. If they couldn't pirate a copy, they would buy it.

And even a lot of people who do know about OpenOffice believe that it doesn't offer enough compatibility/functionality for their purposes (these tend to be Windows power users).
You skipped part of my scenario....
Bob only needs something for his p0rn password list. So you think they would honestly buy it if all they did was use it to type out the grocery list, the p0rn site password list and stuff like that? Those type of users would honestly pirate MSoffice?

People often pirate stuff because they WANT it not really because they need it. If you truly need it then I would say most purchase it. IMO of course....

prizrak
February 7th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Based on the Windows users I know, I would strongly disagree with this example. The Windows users I know have no idea there is a free alternative to MS Office. If they couldn't pirate a copy, they would buy it.

And even a lot of people who do know about OpenOffice believe that it doesn't offer enough compatibility/functionality for their purposes (these tend to be Windows power users).
Actually interestingly enough MS Office's (and Windows's) dominance in the market is largely due to ease of piracy of those things. Back when Star Office, Word Perfect and a couple of others were around MS made it extremely easy to get your hands on their office product. (There were also bundles of Windows + Office sold for reduced price).

I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of current illegal Office users would go to OOo or other alternatives. They would be forced to actually look for other alternatives because a good number of people plain can't afford the package. I couldn't pay for MS Office right now (luckily I'm on Ubuntu so I don't need to).

Adamant1988
February 7th, 2007, 08:36 PM
Actually interestingly enough MS Office's (and Windows's) dominance in the market is largely due to ease of piracy of those things. Back when Star Office, Word Perfect and a couple of others were around MS made it extremely easy to get your hands on their office product. (There were also bundles of Windows + Office sold for reduced price).

I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of current illegal Office users would go to OOo or other alternatives. They would be forced to actually look for other alternatives because a good number of people plain can't afford the package. I couldn't pay for MS Office right now (luckily I'm on Ubuntu so I don't need to).

This is not an uncommon tactic at all. You simply flood the market with your wares at a low price and either
a) Lock the consumer in with something like closed document formats, or
b) Force the other vendors out of the market.

Either way you end up with a "captive audience" so to speak, and you can pretty much do whatever you want with the prices.

Honestly, I think with the appropriate marketing most open source products would quickly become standard. Part of the problem with Open source is it's SO reliant on word of mouth, you pretty much have a brand new project that could change the world start up quietly, and die from lack of interest simply because there wasn't enough noise. I'm sure OpenOffice would take off in the home market if more people knew about it, etc.

daynah
February 7th, 2007, 08:45 PM
I think paying for software for Linux would be the beginning of the end. It starts out so innocent... and me, being naive, would probably fall for it. Thus I don't blame other people falling for it.

But soon, like others mentioned, everything will end up costing something.

lyceum
February 7th, 2007, 08:49 PM
I think paying for software for Linux would be the beginning of the end. It starts out so innocent... and me, being naive, would probably fall for it. Thus I don't blame other people falling for it.

But soon, like others mentioned, everything will end up costing something.

I think that even if FOSS took the biggest share of the market there would be people out there outraged that people were selling the software. There will allways be free (as in price) stuff. If you want cheap, it will be there. I want quality, and if it costs more, I will pay (with in reason). My fear on selling FOSS is that there will be a huge market crash like the .com boom because everyone would be trying to find a way to make a quick buck!

prizrak
February 7th, 2007, 10:30 PM
I think paying for software for Linux would be the beginning of the end. It starts out so innocent... and me, being naive, would probably fall for it. Thus I don't blame other people falling for it.

But soon, like others mentioned, everything will end up costing something.

When RMS started out he used to sell tapes with GNU software on them for $200 a pop...... There are quite a few pay for distro's out there that are doing quite well. SuSE and RedHat are pretty much the choice for corporate deployments.

When it comes to FLOSS you are basically paying for either support, distribution or something extra (proprietary codecs for example). If you are purchasing a proprietary product you pay for the time/effort and all other expenses that the company that made it incurs.

I don't see how paying for software would be beginning of the end. No one is going to stop offering FLOSS for free, more so you can legally purchase FLOSS software and then copy it for as many people as you want (well GPL'ed software in any case).

With proprietary it wouldn't make any difference from what it is now on Windows.

My fear on selling FOSS is that there will be a huge market crash like the .com boom because everyone would be trying to find a way to make a quick buck!
Highly doubtful because FOSS isn't very easy to sell for quick profit. If your project is good other people will pick it up and possibly fork it and provide it for free or it's gonna suck and no one will want it. Since there is no vendor lock in, it's not easy to market.

vinboy
February 19th, 2007, 12:08 AM
hi guys
recently i was reading about reply from a software company.

they said they have no plan to release their software for the linux users because linux users usually use free software and not wanting to pay for it.

is that true?

personally, i will pay for software if it is worthwhile.
I'm sick of all these free software thing, it makes the users(who take from the community) to think that we are suppose to do work for them for FREE!

When I say software, I mean these:
-Endnote
-Macromedia Dreamweaver etc
-Adobe Acorbat Professional

NOT:
-terminal window
-other small software

would you pay for software?

BWF89
February 19th, 2007, 12:17 AM
I will only buy something if there is not a free replacement that can do the same thing. Most of the time this is due to legal complications to certain software.

Example: I was looking for a DVD burning app for Linux. The closest thing I could find to what I was looking for was OSX Burn but it still wouldn't burn Video_TS files. So I had my dad get Toast 8.

r4ik
February 19th, 2007, 12:18 AM
Ubuntu is Free Software, and available to you free of charge. It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom, but you probably knew that already! Unlike many of the other commercial distributions in the free and open source world, the Ubuntu team really does believe that Free software should be free of software licencing charges.

No.

EDIT
Would you concider to edit the second option ?

Mateo
February 19th, 2007, 12:19 AM
yup, would.

tesuki
February 19th, 2007, 12:21 AM
I would buy software as long it is worth the money and as long there isn't a freeware app that does the same thing better or equaly.

and I agree on that thing you said about: if you create something for free and maintain it the user sees it more as something the maintaner must do. some few appriciate the work. not many though.

Arisna
February 19th, 2007, 12:22 AM
I would consider paying for a distribution set of Free software that I want to support or donating money, time, or resources to a Free software project. I would strongly prefer not, however, to pay for or use software that is commercially licensed. I believe I speak for many people in these forums when I say this.

No offense, but I do not think you quite understand how the Free/Open Source Software development model works. It generally starts with people who are passionate about designing a software solution to some problem, rather than people who program to make a living. Users are free simply to use the software, but often they give back to the development community by reporting bugs, writing/improving documentation, seeding torrents, and writing patches.

Quillz
February 19th, 2007, 12:22 AM
That's a nice unbiased poll you've got there.

Old Pink
February 19th, 2007, 12:23 AM
I would pay for drivers before I paid for software. Everything software-wise I could ever need is available on Linux for free, so far. Drivers are scarce though.

Kindred
February 19th, 2007, 12:23 AM
I would pay for software to be developed for my needs specifically, but doubtful I would pay for off the shelf software as it were.

Hex_Mandos
February 19th, 2007, 12:24 AM
I use free software if I can, and when I used Windows, I pirated most of the rest. I don't feel guilty about it, as getting legal software is hard in my country, and terribly expensive anyway. I DID buy some legal stuff, when I wanted things like good documentation and the price was good enough. I'm not opposed to buying software, it's just that most of the time software vendors are abusive, releasing buggy software for outrageous prices. It's just the same with movies: I buy DVDs when they offer some real value. Most of the time, they're a ripoff.

WinterWeaver
February 19th, 2007, 12:26 AM
Personally I will pay for software too. I don't mind, as long as it's software that is worth it and transparent.

By 'Worth It' I mean that it's well developed, productive, well supported. Software that compare to this is the Adobe products (which I wish was developed on Linux), and some Video Editing packages, like Final Cut Pro etc.

Transparent, can mean many things, but mostly the knowledge that there isn't any malicious code in the software. This probably means that the code is released as Open Source (excuse me if I'm mistaken... but i'm no expert in the field, merely a normal home user). As far as I understand this is the main thing keeping software companies from developing OSS, because they may have some algorithms and/or code which they want to keep secret.

Maya from Alias|Wavefront is available on Linux, and you do have to pay for it, so I don't understand why companies use the "They want free software"-excuse. I would actually pay for Maya on Linux, but because I don't have the other software to compliment my animations, like video editing and compositing software, there is no real reason for me to do so. So I prefer using Blender, which is OSS, and free.

Also, because I don't have to pay for the OS and it's upgrades, office suites, anti-virus software, firewall software etc, I have that extra money to spend on Software which really matters to me.

anyway, those are my thoughts.

PS: I would also say that you should edit your second option.... cause Ubuntu is FREE, but DEFINITELY NOT developed by idiots... so please rethink the second option.

WW

AndyCooll
February 19th, 2007, 12:27 AM
Like most of us, I'd prefer not to pay for software. However, if appropriate I would be willing to pay software. For instance if my favourite game (Football Manager) became available on Linux I'd happily fork out for it.

:cool:

vinboy
February 19th, 2007, 12:33 AM
Ubuntu is Free Software, and available to you free of charge. It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom, but you probably knew that already! Unlike many of the other commercial distributions in the free and open source world, the Ubuntu team really does believe that Free software should be free of software licencing charges.

No.

EDIT
Would you concider to edit the second option ?

yes, how do I edit the poll?

r4ik
February 19th, 2007, 12:39 AM
Now there is a good question..got NO idea.
Anyone please...

Hendrixski
February 19th, 2007, 12:43 AM
I could care less if software is free as in "free beer", the only thing I care about is that it's free as in "Free speech".

Somehow this questions seems loaded, it would be better as a yes or no, without the pretentious comments after the yes and no options.

r4ik
February 19th, 2007, 12:48 AM
yes, how do I edit the poll?

Looked around and it seems once it is started you cant,never mind it is the intention that counts.

Tomosaur
February 19th, 2007, 12:50 AM
I'd pay for software if there was no free alternative. It's just common sense, and it's an absolutely pathetic excuse for companies who won't create a Linux version of their software. Linux users aren't 'against paying', they are 'for freedom'. Freedom doesn't mean paying nothing, it means no restrictive licenses, end-user trust, and ability to improve the software.

Anthem
February 19th, 2007, 12:55 AM
What software are we talking about?

Everything I use for work has adequate Free equivilents, but hypothetically I'm not opposed to buying software if I must. I buy software games, for example.

Free Software keeps moving up the food chain, though. First it was a runtime, then a kernel, then a desktop environment, then productivity apps, then database stacks, etc. Before too long there won't be room for proprietary software anymore.

"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." -- Linus Torvalds (09-28-2003)

Omnios
February 19th, 2007, 01:19 AM
I don't think its just an issue of if people will pay but more so how much they will pay and for what. I probably would pay for something that is affordable and useful to me.

BrokeBody
February 19th, 2007, 02:02 AM
If Ubuntu wouldn't be free of charge for example, I would gladly pay for it.

lichmeister
February 19th, 2007, 02:59 AM
the only reason my hard drive is still tainted by a MS Windows partition is the lack of competive equivalents for linux.

:biggrin: games; many of my friends and i spend voracious amounts of money on games from mmorpg's to sport simulators to classic fps mayhem... sure we are grown ups but we cant get enough! we may prefer linux but atlantik and Unreal on linux vs. EQ2 and Oblivion... no contest

:guitar: audio recording / mixing / editting ; audacity is awesome for what it is but professional musicians [and those who aspire to be professional musicians] need, nay, demand more and will gladly pay for software that does what they need reliably, and on-the-fly [*cough, windoze sux, cough*]

:KS video editing ; theres already a ton of good programs for this kind of thing out there in the community for free if your making home movies and stuff. i'd probably even pay more for a competive [and compatible] linux application since it would be really cut back on the quality time im forced to spend in windoze.

:lolflag: stuff like xmms, xine, openoffice.org, firefox/thunderbird, gtkpod, k3b, gaim, qtparted, grip, Gpdf, and any game over a decade old should be always and forever public domain... they are like the utensils at the dinner table: utterly unremarkable, yet wholely indispensable... and the games? im talking everything from monopoly/scrabble/risk to frogger/gauntlet/tetris should be free for all! heck, some of them have been around so long the only reason to play them is to show our kids how rough we had it when we were their age!

Polygon
February 19th, 2007, 03:07 AM
why would i need to pay for software when there is most likely a free open source alternative?

some of the most well known software is open source. Wikipedia, audacity, blender, firefox, thunderbird, azureus, and lots more

Sometimes i need a program to do something, like make a DVD that plays in a dvd player. my dad offered to buy me a program that would do it, but i said "hmm let me find a program that could do it for free". So i downloaded torvid, and within about 20 minutes i made a DVD complete with menu and everything with a simple open source application that did not cost me a dime

the only pieces of software that i would consider buying right now are video games, but it would be really nice if these were open source as well.

mcduck
February 19th, 2007, 11:04 AM
I wouldn't pay a dime for anything if there's a good free alternative doing the same thing.

However I would be more than happy to pay for some high-quality professional audio and 3D software (as I now need to run Windows or OSX to do that kind of work). I'd also happily pay for games if there was a native Linux version available.

Spr0k3t
February 19th, 2007, 11:16 AM
If the application is truely a killer app, and I needed it for work I do... no question about it. I'd fork over thousands for an exquisite Java IDE... oh wait, Eclipse is free. Okay, let me try that again. Yeah, I'd drop a 5bomb on Dreamweaver... er, we have NVU. Hmmm... Okay, I've got it... I'll throw down a couple hundred to get Illist... almost forgot about ink... What about, no... there's already OpenOffice. How about, no, that won't work...

I know I know!!! I'd give fifty cents for a working 64bit version of Flash Player!

All kidding aside, if the application was indeed worth having on Linux, I would definitely consider paying for it with the notion of paying for the support rather than paying for the application itself.

The way I look at it, big name companies have it backwards when it comes to the money makers. They should be giving away their applications for free and charging for support. You might get lucky to have repeat consumers, but the numbers go up exponentially if the software is freely available. The support would then suck for the free users, but those who pay for support should be given priority.

jcconnor
February 20th, 2007, 04:04 AM
The problem that I see with the "free as in beer" thing is that it really isn't. For a lot of software - (Open Office, Ubuntu, Firefox, Amarok) and not just the big guys like those (Audacity, XMMS, Gimp - though that might be in the other group) for example - there is some overhead in Web site costs, development systems / environments, etc. Somebody is footing the bills for that stuff. While I'm not a programmer and so can't contribute in that way, and while I do see some advantage in bug reporting, I think that there should be a method to help assist in defraying some of those costs. So, to the extent possible, I will be donating to help offset these.

Maybe that should have been an alternate to the "purchase" model question. I would prefer not to "pressured" into a purchase but feel very good about donating to help offset some of the costs to provide the software. I know a lot of people can't do that for a lot of reasons and I think that is the beauty of "free" software. No pressure, use it if you like it, help us modify it, spread the word and if you can, and finally without asking or expecting it really, help defray some of the overhead costs.

Kinda like "shareware" taken to it's logical end.

john

ljpm
February 20th, 2007, 05:05 AM
I would pay for drivers before I paid for software. Everything software-wise I could ever need is available on Linux for free, so far. Drivers are scarce though.

I wouldn't pay for drivers, especially after paying for the hardware. You don't have to pay for windows drives do you.

Mr. Picklesworth
February 20th, 2007, 06:09 AM
I'm playing devil's advocate here and this is a total ramble, but this is three quarters of my opinion on the matter.


I learned with and have always embraced a proprietary programming language developed by some fellow in New Zealand. It isn't big and the whole thing is really quite humble; it feels just as friendly as free software, though also a bit more focused on being a solid product so I am not angry about spending $80 for it. There are free alternatives which do fairly well, but the difference is that the guy who makes this product does it for a living. For that reason he provides full support so I can really trust it to work and if it doesn't I can trust it to be fixed.

I feel pretty good supporting the guy; it's a mandatory donation, but he deserves it. I get free updates, a good, working web site, a strong community free of monkeys and a decent reassurance that the product I am using is a well-respected and capable package that I can trust and which even some pros use.

Just because I am paying for it does NOT mean that it is evil! Software development is a way to make a living, just like automobile engineering. Should people start designing automobiles for free because some Joe in his basement built his own car?
There is a time and a place for free, but it is not all free and it will not all be free. I use Ubuntu to run a proprietary compiler to compile the early prototype for an independent game which I - like millions of others - hope to sell for money because I - like billions of others - could really use that money.
Sure, I'll develop a web site over a year for a community organization and I'll even spend another few months to release its framework as a free content management system, but I for one am not a bottomless pit of heartwarming giving. Heck, that CMS I talked about? I already have some unobtrusive ads ready to be set up, just like thousands of other projects, because supporting a content management system is not as simple an act as putting it out there and making it free.

All the stuff I'm doing right now? It's hopping onto my resume at break-neck speeds in the hopes of getting somewhere happy. Not money-making, really, but happy. If I can develop software indipendently and make an honest living, for example, I will be very happy. It won't be free software, but it will be good.

Is indie software development "evil" on the same whim as a corporation like EA, Adobe or Microsoft? Heck no! These folks make good work, most of them do it for fun and as a hobby, and the money has a magical habit of convincing - or helping - people to keep at it.

Would those amazing free Half-Life 2 total conversions like Dystopia or Black Mesa be where they are without VALVE's proprietary Source engine? I'm sure some day there will be an easy Open-Source graphics engine that's better than Source, but that day is not today.
Do you honestly think that Linux would be where it is today if people like Linus Torvalds (and other high-profile kernel hackers) did not earn money for their efforts?

Free software relies on money somewhere down the road; it's the way things go. Just accept it and move on. Operating systems should be free and that should be supported by the software vendors like Adobe; the more people able to run their software the better for them. Web browsers should be free because software vendors rely on the web to provide information to their users. (And because web browsing is an open standard...)
The basics should be free, and it is a great thing that we have been provided with that capability and that the powers of this community can pretty well stop that from slipping.
Everything else, though, like Gimp, Blender or OpenOffice, is very tasty icing on the cake.

Adamant1988
February 20th, 2007, 06:33 AM
Short answer:

I believe in commerce. I have no problem paying for software.

riggits
February 20th, 2007, 06:52 AM
The second poll option is ridiculous. It's pure trolling.

Anyways, the only software I've ever paid for is free software. I've donated.
I also bought boxed Mandrake 8.0 years ago (and totally regretted it!)

aysiu
February 20th, 2007, 06:57 AM
The second poll option is ridiculous. It's pure trolling. You're absolutely right. The second option is ridiculously phrased, so I'm creating a new but similar poll. I've attached as an image the results of the old poll.

dasunst3r
February 20th, 2007, 06:57 AM
It would be funny for me to say that I don't pay for software, even if it is offered for free. I donate to software development when I find the project to make a significant impact on my life.

barney_1
February 20th, 2007, 06:59 AM
Where is the image you attached?

Edit: When I responded to this, it was a single post of a new thread.... don't know why it linked back to this thread.

aysiu
February 20th, 2007, 07:00 AM
Where is the image you attached?
It's there now. It took me a while to get it uploaded.

aysiu
February 20th, 2007, 07:01 AM
I would have no problem paying for Linux software, if it wasn't obscenely overpriced. It wouldn't even have to be open source.
I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. $15 is reasonable. Even $100 for an excellent piece of software. $1500... are you kidding me? A lot of programs right now are thousands of US dollars, and that's obscene.

Boomy
February 20th, 2007, 07:36 AM
I would definitely pay for software. If Ableton Live, Propellerhead Reason, Vegas Video, etc were available I would buy them. I might even pay for music if the online stores supported Linux and didn't have DRM files. It's the industry's loss, not mine. ;)

cantormath
February 20th, 2007, 07:45 AM
I think it is silly that I need to pay $1000 to learn a software package that has become the industry standard. I should, if it is required by the creator, pay for the software if I am using it in a profitable endeavor, but when I am a poor student, they can kiss my pirating a$$.

:KS

Zer0Nin3r
February 20th, 2007, 09:49 AM
No, as one poster has said, I'd rather donate rather than pay for licensing fees or worrying about cracking software. I still haven't gotten around to it yet, but I want to donate some money to portableapps.com. It's an ingenious idea. Plus, I would rather pay what I think it's worth or what I can afford. I like the whole going back to the grass roots ideal with open source. And if I was making six figures then I'd be more inclined to throw some more money into the pot for projects that can benefit everyone be it functionality or education wise.

Dayylin
February 20th, 2007, 11:36 AM
If the software was quality and it helped to persuade others to make some programs for linux , then yes, I would definitely pay.

Once some of the companies wake up and realize there is a market for software for linux (especially games) we will see some more.

OrangeCrate
February 20th, 2007, 11:54 AM
Of course. You don't get cars, appliances, food or clothing for free do you? However, if a company is going to charge for their products instead of giving them away, they will have to compete in the open marketplace against other similar items, and the quality, ease of use, etc., will dictate whether the product and the company survives. Companies who give stuff away for free, don't have to compete against anyone.

Just because something is free doesn't make it good. "Value given is value received" as they say - it's how our economic system works.

suziequzie
February 21st, 2007, 04:51 AM
Of course. If there's a killer game or app out there that has good support, is polished and stable and supported by my linux, then I would support the company that made it. Especially if it's a really cool game.

If I couldn't afford it at first, I'd just do what I did with windows games... wait a year or two and buy them for under $20 at EB Games. It may be an older game, but it'd be new to me.

Al' Capone
February 21st, 2007, 05:37 AM
give me quickbooks premium running native on linux and i'll gladly pay for it. give me nero running native in linux exactly the way it looks and behaves in Microsuck Winblows XPloit and I'll pay for it. give me Visio for Linux even if it is developed by microsuck I'll pay for it.

I could think of a few more.

so the answer is yes i'll pay for software that i need/use and makes my life easier.

give me some good RTS games developed for Linux such as ages of empires and such and i'll pay for them.

vinboy
February 21st, 2007, 05:42 AM
give me quickbooks premium running native on linux and i'll gladly pay for it. give me nero running native in linux exactly the way it looks and behaves in Microsuck Winblows XPloit and I'll pay for it. give me Visio for Linux even if it is developed by microsuck I'll pay for it.

I could think of a few more.

so the answer is yes i'll pay for software that i need/use and makes my life easier.

give me some good RTS games developed for Linux such as ages of empires and such and i'll pay for them.

hey, I'm very into Age of empires too!
I'm thinking to make a Java clone of Age of empire 2: The Conqueror ,look at the post here http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=365937

so how do you play age of empires nowadays?

Al' Capone
February 21st, 2007, 04:45 PM
i have an old pentium III with tinyXP installed NOT connected to the internet AT ALL just for quickbooks, visio & Age Of Empires II the conquerors.

also i successfully installed and played on linux bu the game suck on linux speed wise and can only play it on 1024x768 which really sucks since i have a 20" LCD

I dont care much for AoE III

why java? ...i think python-gtk will be an awesome development platform.

cheers

Al'

deanlinkous
February 21st, 2007, 04:53 PM
I'd rather use pencil & paper

dtruesdale
February 21st, 2007, 04:57 PM
I pay for software I use if there is not a good free alternative. I just don't like the windows cycle of OS upgrade (pay) apps upgrade (pay) everytime. You end up out of pocket about $2000.00 in software not including the now $300.00 OS. A good programmer needs to be supported and can make good money on a good app with just getting $10.00 per license or a Lifetime upgrade license for like $25.00. That way people aren't cringing every time there is an upgrade or major release. Again I will support those who write software i use however they ask for it, from donations of cash, hardware or whatever. Commercial software purchases are so I can make money doing stuff so I can understand paying for the commercial software I use daily. The linux cycle has options the windows cycle is vicious and ruthless to bleed you dry.

kondormid
February 21st, 2007, 05:09 PM
If it could make me money I would pay. If not and there is a free alternative I would not pay.

Peyton
February 21st, 2007, 05:24 PM
Yes, I would pay. That's not to say that I'm against free software or anything, but if I need something, I'll pay for it.

fsando
February 21st, 2007, 06:58 PM
yes I would definitely pay for software - don't care if it's windows or linux - if I need it and it's only commercially available. Of course my needs are influenced by price :)

y-lee
February 21st, 2007, 07:43 PM
No way would I pay for software. Information should be Free, it is part of our academic tradition.

boredandblogging.com
February 21st, 2007, 08:32 PM
For a lot of industries, there will not be free software because its heavily customized and changes often.

For example, accounting software in the US. The software has to take into account yearly law changes on a state and federal level in a timely fashion. Most tax work is completed between January and April 15 (obviously). If the law changes late in the year, the software still needs to be updated and rolled out for accountants. There can be no slippage.

I'm not saying that free software can't stick to a schedule. Its just that when there are absolute deadlines for changes, its going to be a lot easier for a company.

jgcamp99
February 24th, 2007, 04:57 AM
I didn't vote in the poll, my response is contingent upon being qualified. I would buy if that's what was only available. I'd weigh price vs compatibility, because let's face it, paying for it, I'd expect it to work as simple as OS X and Windows. Likewise, faced with the option of paying for it and it's not as simple as the competition, I probably wouldn't buy it.

My real perspective on this is that as much as broadband costs per month, Software should be simply free for any OS or application. As much as I spend on broadband, hardware and software costs are pale in comparison. Bellsouth tells me I pay $ 24.95 for DSL Lite, yet in reality after all the hidden taxes are factored in my phone bill each month is just over $ 40 more each month. Dialup was $ 21.95, so I'm paying $ 20 more for DSL Lite over dial-up. In 2 years that's a copy of Vista ultimate.

If cable or the phone company ever had their own OS and applications, they'd crush MS & Apple. Especially if they ever got as WGA and proprietary format crazy as MS is. They'd give you the software for free and bundle the costs with your monthly broadband bill. Linux is almost the perfect OS for them to do so, if it ever gets as widely accepted and easy as Windows or OS X.

YourSurrogateGod
February 27th, 2007, 12:57 AM
Yeh, sure. It's absurd to expect a future that has purely open-sourced software, it would be a mix.

I buy games for my XP partition, so...

Achetar
March 3rd, 2007, 05:04 PM
If there was a free equivelant of the software, then i wouldnt pay for it. Like MS Word for Linux. We already have OO.org

neo_monarchist
March 4th, 2007, 09:31 AM
As the complexity of the task required by software is greater, the number of manpower that must be devoted to the software is greater as well. Software such as OpenOffice.org or AbiWord are sufficient replacements for Microsoft Word because a word processor does not require massive development. However, this isn't the case with demanding, robust software such as games, animation software, or software involving graphics in general. While several people may assist in the creation of a project in their spare time occasionally or otherwise, they will lose to an employed group of hundreds that can work for up to 40 hours a week. Any efforts from an open-source competitor to combat professional closed-source software like Photoshop with the aid of hundreds of paid developers is futile - it is anarchy versus federalism.

If Ubuntu desires to combat Windows, it must make closed-source software less of an enemy. Windows is not very friendly to open-source, and the opposite is true for Ubuntu. The most efficient software environment is one that allows for both open and closed source, not a strict division between the two. How can Linux, and for that matter Ubuntu, move towards such a decision, when one of the tenets of Ubuntu's philosophy is that software should be available "free of charge"?

Somenoob
March 4th, 2007, 09:58 AM
Sure, if it meets the open source definition, than it's okay.

deanlinkous
March 4th, 2007, 11:17 AM
While several people may assist in the creation of a project in their spare time occasionally or otherwise, they will lose to an employed group of hundreds that can work for up to 40 hours a week. Any efforts from an open-source competitor to combat professional closed-source software like Photoshop with the aid of hundreds of paid developers is futile - it is anarchy versus federalism.

Exactly, just look at free software so far. It has accomplished nothing at all. Horribe horrible stuff that can never compete. :confused:

SegolenePresidente
March 4th, 2007, 09:22 PM
While several people may assist in the creation of a project in their spare time occasionally or otherwise, they will lose to an employed group of hundreds that can work for up to 40 hours a week.
Exactly, just look at free software so far. It has accomplished nothing at all. Horribe horrible stuff that can never compete. :confused:

Read critically:


As the complexity of the task required by software is greater, the number of manpower that must be devoted to the software is greater as well. Software such as OpenOffice.org or AbiWord are sufficient replacements for Microsoft Word because a word processor does not require massive development. However, this isn't the case with demanding, robust software such as games, animation software, or software involving graphics in general. While several people may assist in the creation of a project in their spare time occasionally or otherwise, they will lose to an employed group of hundreds that can work for up to 40 hours a week.

deanlinkous
March 5th, 2007, 03:20 AM
i did...

sparhawk
March 10th, 2007, 10:42 PM
I wouldn't pay for the software but I would pay for the support

dtruesdale
March 10th, 2007, 10:48 PM
Well in reality you are paying for the support.

MedivhX
March 10th, 2007, 10:53 PM
[respecting free software philosophy]

I wouldn't pay for commercial Linux software. PERIOD.

[/respecting free software philosophy]

SouthernGorilla
March 10th, 2007, 10:53 PM
I would pay for software under three conditions. First, that it wasn't insanely overpriced. Second, that is was something I really needed. And third, that it worked perfectly right out of the box. The last one is critical, there's no way I'm spending my money on something with bugs in it. If there are bugs they had better be quickly resolved.

tenshi-no-shi
March 20th, 2007, 11:07 PM
I rather not pay for software if I can get a free alternative. And even if there wasn't I would probably not get it simply because I can't afford it.

I would pay for a game though, but not for the software (ie. engine) But for the content of the game. Meaning I want to see a company release an open-source engine for their game and say do with it what you wish, but if you want to play the game we produced please pay for it.

I mean when I was running windows there was so many applications that people wanted to be paid for, and they where not ever worth it, but games an the other hand I have no problem paying for because it took a lot of time creating all the storyline, quests, artwork, models, etc., that they deserved to be paid for it.

But I wish they would just release the engine for that game as open-source so that if you don't want to pay for that game, and wanted to create your own game, you could using that engine.

Tomosaur
March 20th, 2007, 11:13 PM
[respecting free software philosophy]

I wouldn't pay for commercial Linux software. PERIOD.

[/respecting free software philosophy]

The 'free' in 'free software' doesn't mean free as in 'cost's nothing'. It means you are free to modify it and share it etc. You can still sell free software - thus, you can buy software and still be 'respecting' the FOSS philosophy :)

SlayerMan
March 21st, 2007, 08:37 AM
I would pay for a game though, but not for the software (ie. engine) But for the content of the game. Meaning I want to see a company release an open-source engine for their game and say do with it what you wish, but if you want to play the game we produced please pay for it.




... but games an the other hand I have no problem paying for because it took a lot of time creating all the storyline, quests, artwork, models, etc., that they deserved to be paid for it.


So you are basically saying that the work done for the engine is worth less than the work done for the artwork etc.?

I think you're having a double standard here. If you're compromiselessly advocating the FOSS philosophy (as I understand you), then all parts of the program (and the artwork is part of the program since it is nearly worthless without the engine) should be free.

Personally, I think that there are cases where FOSS is the right way to go, e.g. when developing standard software such as word processors etc., and there are cases where not-so-free-software is the right way to go, e.g. when developing industry specific solutions or games.

eilu
March 21st, 2007, 11:34 AM
If I love the program and there's simply no alternative, then yes, I would. Doe example, I would kill for a Diablo 2 that runs natively on Linux. Diablo 3 if they ever come out with it. Since killing is illegal then I'll stick with the more painful option of paying. :)

donkyhotay
April 20th, 2007, 09:45 PM
I'm a little divided on this and actually voted other. I personally believe that with all the open source options out there that anyone who actually pays for software is being robbed. Now I'm completely against software piracy but there are so many open source options out there that if you just take a little bit of time to actually look for it you'll find all you need (I literally laugh at windows users that actually *buy* MSoffice when openoffice is out there for free). Even games are this way, before I converted to windows I used to buy games all the time but even before I moved to linux I found that all the best games are games that have been rewritten or modded by the gaming community as a whole. Some obvious examples of this are tribes(1&2), quake3, savage, and half-life(counterstrike). I've eventually gotten away from games that require wine and even games with linux binaries I don't play anymore because I just plain prefer the open source alternatives. I would never purchase software for itself but I might purchase support for the software if I needed it even if that required going out and buying a disc in a store but if I don't want to buy any software that I can't get the source code for.

slibuntu
April 20th, 2007, 09:57 PM
I think every once in a while, you have to face the facts, yes there are equivilants to virtually everything, but, and i dont mean this in a bad way, i realise how much time and effort is put in and everyone is very grateful, but, very often, they're not as good. Take OOo as an example, its a great program, and for common and garden tasks, its great, but if you had the choice between using either it or Office, without the money or OS consideration, you'd pick Office, it looks better and can do more. If top notch commercial competitors were out there, then, i would be tempted to pay for them. :(

Hex_Mandos
April 20th, 2007, 11:06 PM
I've paid for software when I thought I was getting a good value. Other times, even though I don't pay for software itself, I invest money to use it (for instance, I've bought Linux books). Most of the time, though, it feels like a ripoff. Proprietary software is overpriced, and often lacks good support by vendors.

lklk
March 22nd, 2010, 09:21 PM
Depends what it is.
For example:
Sage should get NFS grants because it is useful in science and maths, so no.
Certain games if they are <=$30 then yes, ie Lego Star Wars.
"Office" type no because there are alternatives to those types of software like LaTeX for documents and presentations, so no.
Video editing, "Photoshop" type, no because they are to expensive.

Smart Viking
March 22nd, 2010, 09:38 PM
Maybe.

Ah i'm so silly, the only reason i said that is because i have just installed linux on my computer for the first time that previously contained a cracked windows 7, and i'm so happy! I have been using windows for years, and i was good at it, i was good at those problems that appeared, i always fixed them! Maybe i should be sorry now, because all the time i used to get my windows fixing skillz now is wasted, cause i wont switch back to windows, i hate windows now, with ubuntu, things acctually works! :D

EDIT: How do i get beans O.o

beetleman64
March 22nd, 2010, 09:56 PM
If it was a piece of software which was better than free software (such as Fluendo DVD) then yes, I would.

sudoer541
March 22nd, 2010, 10:21 PM
OMG this thread is 3 years old!!!

btw I would pay for software but there aint any, other than nero world of goo etc

phibxr
March 22nd, 2010, 10:49 PM
Nice necro. :)

Still, I might pay for Linux software. I have considered buying a subscription to Cedega a few times, but Wine has developed fast enough to have me reconsider it each time.

madjr
March 22nd, 2010, 10:50 PM
well this thread is kinda old, but valid. could be in recurring

yes i do pay for linux software, specially good ports (like games)

i already pay for android apps and bought a few games for linux

i've also donated to proyects or used their services

i support it

Doctor Mike
March 23rd, 2010, 12:15 AM
The collection of programs are mostly available elsewhere. Alternate OSs are available. The Ubuntu distro is too restrictive (for international consumption). Close, but not a fully viable office product. Free beer might change my mind.

Fixing, Adding and removing requires too much time for a Paid for product. That said, it is a very nice product just the same.

Sorry (must open eyes to read), ignore Ubuntu only response. All Linux: Maybe

Random_Dude
March 29th, 2010, 09:31 PM
No I wouldn't.
It would go compleatly against the hole linux philosophy. I hope that free open-source OS will continue to exist.

fatality_uk
March 29th, 2010, 09:37 PM
No I wouldn't.
It would go compleatly against the hole linux philosophy. I hope that free open-source OS will continue to exist.

Really? Please provide more details.

AllRadioisDead
March 29th, 2010, 09:39 PM
No I wouldn't.
It would go compleatly against the hole linux philosophy. I hope that free open-source OS will continue to exist.
Software doesn't grow on trees.

Random_Dude
March 29th, 2010, 10:23 PM
I didn't pay for my Ubuntu. If I had to pay for it, I would probably just use windows.

This is about the OS. If you're talking about more specific programs, I would have to think about it.

Chronon
March 29th, 2010, 11:35 PM
I didn't pay for my Ubuntu. If I had to pay for it, I would probably just use windows.

This is about the OS. If you're talking about more specific programs, I would have to think about it.

In fact it is about specific programs. Did you read the OP? I use Mathematica on Ubuntu, so you have my answer.

thekanuk
March 29th, 2010, 11:56 PM
Yes, I absolutely would! :D

superarthur
March 30th, 2010, 12:02 AM
I chose "other". If it's an utility (things that are useful, like photoshop/GIMP, office/open office), no. But I would pay if it's for entertainment (i.e. games)

Wiebelhaus
March 30th, 2010, 12:14 AM
Yes. If there was no FOSS option or the option was horrible. Like MMO or a professional piece of software.

Random_Dude
March 30th, 2010, 09:10 AM
In fact it is about specific programs. Did you read the OP? I use Mathematica on Ubuntu, so you have my answer.

I didn't express myself very well. When I said "this is about the OS" I meant: "this is my opinion about paying for the OS".

About the other software, I would give it the consideration I give any software before I buy it.