Whydoes anyone make Freeware?

[happysmileman]

Sorry if this has been asked before, or if it's a stupid question.

But why does anyone make freeware, does anyone have anything to gain by programming something for free, giving it away for free, but still refusing access to the source code of it?

[Kingsley]

I think the definition on Wikipedia sums it up.



Freeware is copyrighted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) computer software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software) which is made available for use free of charge, for an unlimited time. Authors of freeware often want to "give something to the community", but also want to retain control of any future development of the software.

[Mateo]

So you get credit for the work you do.

[Dimitriid]

Whydoes anyone make Freeware?

Ego.

[avik]

It's just a matter of control. A freeware author can still distribute to everybody, but he or she can decide in which direction it goes next.

[happysmileman]

So, basically control freaks and people trying to look nicer than they actually are?

[Dimitriid]

No, its just ego. Any FOSS piece of software that is started by a development team can retain full control of the project if they so desire and others might do patches and even forks of the project. Open source doesn't means somebody will kidnap your project and take it away from you: take Mozilla and their trademark of "Firefox".

Im surprised you are on an Ubuntu forum and you don't realize that: its exactly what Ubuntu does to Debian, what Mint does to Ubuntu, etc.

If you close the source you but still want it free it just means that you are not interested in money but in the glory: the recognition of having created a great piece of software and knowing nobody else will take your code and improve it as a fork.

Its just ego.

[popch]

Could be nice guys who think that once they went to the trouble of writing a program for their own use they might just as soon let others use it, too.

[boast]

yeah, they shouldn't make it free at all!

[happysmileman]

Personally I just find Freeware suspicious, with programs you pay for generally you can trust them since the company that hires the programmers is held accountable and would keep it in their best interess to make sure it works. (Same with a few very well known freeware like Opera)

But with Freeware I have no idea whether or not to trust the program or whether it's just some virus pretending to be whatever it says it is, maybe I'm just paranoid, but there's something about someone giving you a free program, but refusing to let you see how it works that makes me kinda suspicious about running it

[Giradman]

Being a long time Windows user, one of my favorite 'freeware' program over the years has been Irfanview - the author has an interesting perspective On His Website (http://www.irfanview.com/) - check out 'about the author' - :KS

So far, I think many of the answers are valid, e.g. writing a program for yourself that turns out to be of value (so share w/ the community), ego trip - OK (I write medical articles & speak @ meetings - a good feeling), altruism (giving away something to others because it's the 'right thing' to do), wanting feedback (bug repairs etc.), and potentially getting some $$ return (donations often solicited) - I'm sure other reasons exist, but I'm glad that these programs are available, esp. when they solve a specific need and does it well w/o crashes & bugs - :)

[happysmileman]

So far, I think many of the answers are valid, e.g. writing a program for yourself that turns out to be of value (so share w/ the community), ego trip - OK (I write medical articles & speak @ meetings - a good feeling), altruism (giving away something to others because it's the 'right thing' to do), wanting feedback (bug repairs etc.), and potentially getting some $$ return (donations often solicited) - I'm sure other reasons exist, but I'm glad that these programs are available, esp. when they solve a specific need and does it well w/o crashes & bugs - :)

None of those reasons except ego trip would explain why they don't just give the source code away with it

[popch]

None of those reasons except ego trip would explain why they don't just give the source code away with it

How about not having decided yet about what to do about the code in the future?

Hard to sell code which has been published.

[forrestcupp]

Some people may have a vision of what they want their program to be like. It's their baby. After a lot of work and finesse, they may not want a bunch of people to get their grubby hands on it and change what the author had pictured in his mind just because they can. It's reckless to just assume that because you're a programmer you should have the right to meddle in any program you want. That's about like me thinking I have the right to take "Gone with the Wind" and change the ending just because I majored in Literature in college.

Open source is a great method of programming, but when someone thinks that everything has to be open source, it almost sounds like whining to me. If someone creates a great program and offers it as freeware, I'll be grateful for it.

[Sef]

Also too many companies use freeware as a means of introducing a product to consumers. They hope the consumer will buy the paid product.

[Giradman]

None of those reasons except ego trip would explain why they don't just give the source code away with it

Boy, you have a 'one track' mind - sounds like a religious quest - good luck! :(

[Dimitriid]

Some people may have a vision of what they want their program to be like. It's their baby. After a lot of work and finesse, they may not want a bunch of people to get their grubby hands on it and change what the author had pictured in his mind just because they can. It's reckless to just assume that because you're a programmer you should have the right to meddle in any program you want. That's about like me thinking I have the right to take "Gone with the Wind" and change the ending just because I majored in Literature in college.

Open source is a great method of programming, but when someone thinks that everything has to be open source, it almost sounds like whining to me. If someone creates a great program and offers it as freeware, I'll be grateful for it.

First off you present a terrible analogy. You cannot compare a program, that is basically a set of instructions that tells a computer how to do something, to a finished product like a movie.

In order to do as a programmer changing a program does, you would have to hire actors, make a script, rent lights, cameras, a post production, editing and production company and shooting a few extra scenes for gone with the wind then adding them to mix or change parts of the movie.

A better analogy would be to say that changing a software would be like a director doing a movie of a certain genre: a mystery, a thriller etc. and having similar sensitivities and editing style. This is not only acceptable but widely recognized with directors winning awards by basically copying much of their work from others and just adding a few personal touches ( if any ).

Again, controlling the project, not wanting the program to be duplicated or using on other ways, all of that is just the makings of a egomaniac that uses Freeware as a way to erroneously validate his self esteem.

That and script kiddies hiding trojans and backdoors on their stuff, or for that matter Companies doing the same things to send tons of spam your way or blackmail you with "upgrades" in the future.

[Presto123]

LOL, It's free. Why worry about it other than possible virus problems? If there was some program out there that someone spent a lot of time to create just so and then have someone turn around and drive it to the ground, I don't think they would be too happy with its negative views.

It's like Gnome. How many different distros are based off of this? If one person sees some cruddy version of it and assumes that Ubuntu is absolute crap because they had bad experiences with the other program, they might think that ALL programs based on Gnome are crap.

That's just the way I see it. Doesn't matter if the analogy is right-on, you should get the picture anyway.

FYI: I like both freeware AND open-source, SO I'm not bashing either one.

[erfahren]

it always amazes me how some in the open-source community feel about closed source freeware. Like the underlying idea is that: "they just want the glory", or that companies that do it have some sort of malicious alternate agenda.

Some people act like it's some sort of crime against the open-source community for developers not to release their code (which is odd since with like Linux for example people say "its all about choice".)

On my Windows installs I, and my wife, use programs that are either freeware or FOSS, basically just what we need that works. There's lots of closed-source freeware that I use and like.

Oftentimes companies release full-working copies of their software to home users and make their money from corperate sales (AVG, Avast!), some give away a program for free that doesn't quite have all the features of the retail version but still has the features many home users need (ZoneAlarm, Ad-aware).

Whatever their reasons it's their choice, isn't it? Or does the open-source movement have some kind of new underlying socialist ideology which says people basically have the freedom of choice as long as it's done this way?

I guess it was only a matter of time before there'd be open-source software fanboys!

[Mateo]

No, its just ego. Any FOSS piece of software that is started by a development team can retain full control of the project if they so desire and others might do patches and even forks of the project. Open source doesn't means somebody will kidnap your project and take it away from you: take Mozilla and their trademark of "Firefox".

Im surprised you are on an Ubuntu forum and you don't realize that: its exactly what Ubuntu does to Debian, what Mint does to Ubuntu, etc.

If you close the source you but still want it free it just means that you are not interested in money but in the glory: the recognition of having created a great piece of software and knowing nobody else will take your code and improve it as a fork.

Its just ego.

There's nothing wrong with having an ego. Everyone has one.

If you release your source code someone else can fork it and make it much better. Then people will stop using your software and you'll not get the recognition for the hard work that you did to build this software that has been forked. I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to protect their work so that they get the recognition.

[jken146]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

[saulgoode]

I am just as reluctant to use freeware, or even shareware, programs as I am proprietary commercial ones. Unless the program is a game or a demo, I do not wish to invest the time needed to learn and become proficient (not to mention the problem of program-specific data files), only to have the program's availability become restricted or "disappear" completely at a later date.

One reason that some software is released freeware that has not been mentioned is because of non-disclosure agreements. The aforementioned Irfanview, for instance, includes the capability of executing Photoshop "macros" which is implemented through a software developer's kit (SDK) provided by Adobe. The software in this SDK can be redistributed as part of compiled binaries, but the developer must agree not to share the code itself.

[the_darkside_986]

This is an interesting thread. And it reminds me of the old days when I struggled trying to find "free" software in Windows that didn't have malicious intentions.

One reason why a company would release proprietary software at no cost would be so that everyone will start to use it and depend on it, and once it is heavily depended on, the company can start charging money for it and possibly file "patent" infringement lawsuits on anyone who tries to develop a non-free or a free, open-source implementation of the program.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with using some small freeware apps here and there, as long as one understands the risks of possible bundled malware. But stuff like the "rar" compression format irritates me so much when everywhere I go, it's what people use. I have to install some non-free restricted package in Ubuntu just to open that crap. If everyone would use open-source solutions such as 7-zip, the computer experience would be so much better. Well maybe people love rar because of its ability to split and re-join files, but it seems like that could be implemented in any other compression scheme.

I mean I don't care what software others are using, but I cannot stand the idea of having to run untrusted, proprietary code in an otherwise free software platform such as Ubuntu. (Yes, I also use the restricted nvidia-glx driver but I have no choice until nouveau is ready for normal use.)

[kopinux]

mostly they say its freeware but when you install it, it is a trialware.

[erfahren]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
that's the philosophy I don't agree with.

Basically, from what the author is saying, if my neighbor (who knows programming) spends a few hours writing a program and I'm wanting a program to do what it does and he should give me a copy. He'd really like to make a few bucks off it since it took his time and effort writing it, but I tell him that's wrong. It's not a material object and can be easily copied so he should make money some other way.

huh?

Quote from ariticle:


Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.

My point is: what about the freedom of the program's author to do what he/she wants with the work?

The author of the article said that not all the people who get the program may have gone and spent the money on it, but many would. Maybe it's impossible for a software designer to get paid for every copy that is distributed, but if a copyright in place he'd get paid for most.

I think that maybe I see this from a different point of view. Since I don't know how to program I see software as intellectual property. It takes someone time and effort for someone to develop it and I appreciate it if I can get a copy for free, but if I can't then I'll either have to pay for it or do without it. (I don't believe in pirating software.)

The author of that sees it from a programmer's perspective and is summed up:


(what society needs is) .... "programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate.

The people that would be able to do that make up probably make up less than 1% of the world's population.

I think the other idea along those lines is that everyone that wants a copy of a program can easily get one and circumvent any unauthorized copy prevention measures to install it. Maybe that's true amongst the circles that programmers travel in, but in reality most people in the general public would have no idea how to go about doing that and would be afraid to try. - So restrictions on software in order to make a profit off it is not completely futile.

The developers of software that want to freely share their work have every right to do so (and as a Linux user I truly appreciate it), but insisting that every software designer do the same is anti-capitalist. People have the right to make money providing needed/wanted services, whether it be writing software, home/auto repair services, writing textual documents, or whatever they do.

What bothers me is that it's said that all software should be open-source. However it sometimes seems that the ideology of open-source is that a computer user should actively contribute to writing/improving the software that they use. If those two points are considered together then in reality it's saying that what is desired is that the only people that should be using computers is those who are able to program them.

Now that sounds egotistical to me!

[erfahren]

mostly they say its freeware but when you install it, it is a trialware.
"trialware" stops functioning partially or completely after the trial period is over. Not all freeware does that.

[Dimitriid]

it always amazes me how some in the open-source community feel about closed source freeware. Like the underlying idea is that: "they just want the glory", or that companies that do it have some sort of malicious alternate agenda.


While I don't agree with Freeware and I think the reasoning behind it is dubious as best people are free to be as egomaniatic as they well please.

Everybody has an ego is not necessarily a bad thing on its own, just misdirected.

[Dimitriid]

There's nothing wrong with having an ego. Everyone has one.

If you release your source code someone else can fork it and make it much better. Then people will stop using your software and you'll not get the recognition for the hard work that you did to build this software that has been forked. I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to protect their work so that they get the recognition.

Yes as in my previous post I do agree, but applying it to something like software just hinders development and advancements in general. There are certain things in life where egos, while fine elsewhere, should be left at the door, this is one of them imho.

[happysmileman]

Ok so the possibility of seeling it later seems reasonable, and obviously non-disclosure agreements have to be upheld if you don't wanna get sued.
Any other reasons?

[forrestcupp]

First off you present a terrible analogy. You cannot compare a program, that is basically a set of instructions that tells a computer how to do something, to a finished product like a movie.

In order to do as a programmer changing a program does, you would have to hire actors, make a script, rent lights, cameras, a post production, editing and production company and shooting a few extra scenes for gone with the wind then adding them to mix or change parts of the movie.
Wow! I was talking about the book, not the movie. Is that better? After all, a book is just a bunch of words on paper that cause your brain (your body's computer) to process certain thoughts. Should someone just be allowed to change the end of "Gone with the Wind" (the book), add their name to it, and distribute it just because they are a decent writer and they think it should have went another way? Only if the original author wanted help from the community. There are times for it, and there are times when it is not necessary.



One reason why a company would release proprietary software at no cost would be so that everyone will start to use it and depend on it, and once it is heavily depended on, the company can start charging money for it and possibly file "patent" infringement lawsuits on anyone who tries to develop a non-free or a free, open-source implementation of the program.
As far as being an end-user goes, you always have the option of not upgrading to the new commercial version. In Windows I use a multi-track recording program called Reaper. All versions before 1.0 were freeware, then with 1.0 they started charging. So I use version 0.99 because I don't have the money to pay for new versions.

[capink]

The thoery of ego is only relevant when the software is developed by individuals. But I believe certain freeware can make money for the parties developing it. When you look at programs like:

utorrent
acrobat reader
opera
....

it is certain that the companies developing these programs are getting money from it. The question is how? for opera it is obvious that they can make money. But what about the others?

[capink]

it always amazes me how some in the open-source community feel about closed source freeware. Like the underlying idea is that: "they just want the glory", or that companies that do it have some sort of malicious alternate agenda.

Some people act like it's some sort of crime against the open-source community for developers not to release their code (which is odd since with like Linux for example people say "its all about choice".)

On my Windows installs I, and my wife, use programs that are either freeware or FOSS, basically just what we need that works. There's lots of closed-source freeware that I use and like.

Oftentimes companies release full-working copies of their software to home users and make their money from corperate sales (AVG, Avast!), some give away a program for free that doesn't quite have all the features of the retail version but still has the features many home users need (ZoneAlarm, Ad-aware).

Whatever their reasons it's their choice, isn't it? Or does the open-source movement have some kind of new underlying socialist ideology which says people basically have the freedom of choice as long as it's done this way?

I guess it was only a matter of time before there'd be open-source software fanboys!

I agree with most of your post. People should have the choice to make closed source programs. It is part of their freedom and it does not take away my freedom. If I don't like closed source software, I won't use it.

But on the other hand, things like file formats should be open source and standardized. Because when companies push closed source formats they are taking away my freedom, they are forcing me to use their program just to have interoprability with others.

[jken146]

The thoery of ego is only relevant when the software is developed by individuals. But I believe certain freeware can make money for the parties developing it. When you look at programs like:

utorrent
acrobat reader
opera
....

it is certain that the companies developing these programs are getting money from it. The question is how? for opera it is obvious that they can make money. But what about the others?

utorrent doesn't make money. As far as I know it is not free software because the creator wants total control over the code himself.

I suppose Adobe don't make you pay for their PDF reader because there are so many other freeware or free software PDF readers out there, and if lots of people use theirs they can make it have features that are only useful to PDFs created with their commercial PDF creator.

[hockey97]

One reason I know some programers make freeware is mainly to help with their resume. I helps alot if you have a certificate. That's another reason I think why people make freeware. They still get credit.

[klange]

...

The question is extremely simple and so is the answer:

FreeWare is made so that the developers can release their programs free of charge to the community while maintaining the rights to the code, whether it be due to an inability to release the source code, or an unwillingness to do so.


Keep in mind that OSS can be non-free-(as in beer), as can proprietary software be free (as in beer)

Would you like it if Flash cost money?

[Flyingjester]

I'm fine with freeware, to develop software and make it available to me free of charge is a very nice thing for a person to do. I don't care what their motives are behind it. I mean seriously. These people take hours and hours of their lives to develop a program that they give out for free. If they want to hold on to the source code, all the more power to them, they WROTE It.

[popch]

In actual fact, scarcely any one makes freeware.

What they do is writing software and deciding later to let people distribute and use it free of cost.

There are - as in any human endeavour - different motives, some utterly selfish, others not.

Some of those motives might be:

Not wanting to go waste something which can be useful to others
Providing an entry version for potential customers (like Corel which offered older versions of their graphics suite free of charge or IrfanView which is free of charge for individuals but not for corporate users)
Causing a large number of users using the front end for the back end product which in turn generates the revenues (Acrobat Reader, Netscape Navigator, Internet Explorer)

[capink]

utorrent doesn't make money. As far as I know it is not free software because the creator wants total control over the code himself.


I heard that utorrent was bought by bittorrent for a large sum of money. So I think in one way or another it is making money for the company which bought it.

[AusIV4]

I spent a couple of years developing a game mod which i released as Freeware. At the time I was mostly unfamiliar with open source. I was aware of a few mods that were open source, but most kept their source close. I certainly would have liked to make my mod open source, but I had accepted code from some other mods under the terms that I not release their code, so I was unable to release a complete version of my code.

Now, I did write a few smaller mods without excepting code from other users and I did release the source to those. Sometimes, if there were a feature I had written for my primary mod, I would release a mini-mod (as I called them) that was a standalone implementation of the feature I wanted to release the source code.

So basically, my primary reason for writing freeware was that I had committed to not releasing other people's source. I enjoyed what I was writing, and wanted other people to be able to use it, but I couldn't release the complete source.

[Mateo]

I heard that utorrent was bought by bittorrent for a large sum of money. So I think in one way or another it is making money for the company which bought it.

bittorrent does own utorrent now. Since it's the best windows torrent client, it's probably used to promote their p2p protocol.

[Dimitriid]

The thoery of ego is only relevant when the software is developed by individuals. But I believe certain freeware can make money for the parties developing it. When you look at programs like:

utorrent
acrobat reader
opera
....

it is certain that the companies developing these programs are getting money from it. The question is how? for opera it is obvious that they can make money. But what about the others?

In those cases you are right but I question how "free" they are. Some are just adware ( hence not really free ) and others is what I call blackware ( short for blackmail-ware ).

They can make money with providing support for the software too. But things like Firefox that are ( almost in the opinion of some ) FOSS can make money for their authors while being both free and open source so it doesn't really makes sense to close the source unless is blackware that will get discontinued in the future to try and get people to move to a paid version.

[forrestcupp]

They can make money with providing support for the software too. But things like Firefox that are ( almost in the opinion of some ) FOSS can make money for their authors while being both free and open source so it doesn't really makes sense to close the source unless is blackware that will get discontinued in the future to try and get people to move to a paid version.
Firefox is a huge project created by a huge company (Mozilla) that has a lot of financial backing from sources that are interested in keeping the project going. That is the only reason they are able to pay their programmers. The majority of FOSS projects out there are most likely written by programmers who aren't getting paid.