thelinuxlink.net

"When I talk with with other people about Free-Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS), I still hear a lot of people mistakenly use the term “commercial software” as if it had the opposite meaning of FLOSS (aka open source software, Free-Libre Software, or OSS/FS). That’s in spite of (1) the rise in commercial development and support for FLOSS, (2) most FLOSS projects’ goal to incorporate improvements, which are actually a form of financial gain, (3) official definitions of “commercial item” that include FLOSS, and (4) FLOSS licenses and projects that clearly approve of commercial support. Terms like “proprietary software” or “closed source” are plausible antonyms of FLOSS, but “commercial” is absurd as an antonym. In this essay I’ll explain why it’s so important to understand that “commercial” is not the opposite of FLOSS, and then give examples of each of those four points to justify the claim. The essay then notes that many do not make this mistake, briefly notes some alternatives, and ends with some conclusions."

Before you comment what I say next, please do read all of David A. Wheeler's article or you won't completely get what I am saying.

I personally couldn't agree more with what David A. Wheeler is saying in this article. I often hear people say "I don't have a problem paying for software" when they try to say that they don't mind paying for proprietary software. I don't have a problem paying for software either, as long as it's free software! For instance I bought a copy of the OpenBSD 3.9 CD-set that you can buy, you get three CDs with the operating system for various platforms (i386, AMD64, macppc, sparc, sparc64), a few binary packages, the source code and the ports tree for installing other stuff. I paid 350 DKK, which amounts to 61.82 US dollars, which is 50% of what a Windows XP Home Edition OEM license costs. I also own the retail box of SUSE Linux 10.0.
People say that free software people don't want to pay for software and are anti-capitalistic, well, I'm pretty much a free software guy, and I do pay for the software I use, frankly, I won't pay for software that does not give me "the four freedoms" as RMS puts it.

Well, I think you're more the exception, rather than the rule. Most people aren't going to pay for software that they can download legally for free. Part of what attracted me to Linux in the first place was that it's free, and I'm a cheap bastard.

That being said, I have purchased Linux distros before. (Yellow Dog, Slackware) Soley because I wanted to support the people behind them, and I happened to have the money to spare at the time. Unfortunately, most people aren't that altruistic.

Wally Balljacker wrote:Well, I think you're more the exception, rather than the rule. Most people aren't going to pay for software that they can download legally for free. Part of what attracted me to Linux in the first place was that it's free, and I'm a cheap bastard.

I didn't say that most people would pay for free software, to be honest, I doubt they would.

Wally Balljacker wrote:That being said, I have purchased Linux distros before. (Yellow Dog, Slackware) Soley because I wanted to support the people behind them, and I happened to have the money to spare at the time. Unfortunately, most people aren't that altruistic.

Even if it's only to show support, you're still willing to pay for free software! Part of that "support" helps to ensure that the distro, say Slackware, will stay as good as it is today. Sure if PatV wanted to quit and go work for Apple, somebody in the community would continue Slackware, however I doubt it would be all the same.

I bought OpenBSD, both because I don't have a problem paying for the software I use, and also because I wanted to support OpenBSD, heck, they are the developers of OpenSSH, which all Linux distros use as their SSH tool.

Supporting a project by buying there cds, t-shirts, mugs etc is very different from buying a proprietary licence.
The OpenBSD cds you bought , you are free to install on as many computers as you like, copy the cds if you like, ( although there cd layout is copywrited ?? ) modify the code etc...

Whereas with a proprietary licence none of the above are allowed.

Support and commercialism is different, OpenBSD needs the money to make sure the project continues, whereas commercial interests is mostly about profits.

allix wrote:Supporting a project by buying there cds, t-shirts, mugs etc is very different from buying a proprietary licence.
The OpenBSD cds you bought , you are free to install on as many computers as you like, copy the cds if you like, ( although there cd layout is copywrited ?? ) modify the code etc...

Whereas with a proprietary licence none of the above are allowed.

Support and commercialism is different, OpenBSD needs the money to make sure the project continues, whereas commercial interests is mostly about profits.

In any case, both things are commercial use, and both makes for a profit. The point of me posting this article was not to start a debate over whether people would pay for free software, the only reason I mentioned it in my comments was to give an idiot-proof example of why "commercial software" is not the same as "proprietary software".

To add to your comments, I don't really see the big practical difference between me buying OpenBSD or Joe-Computer-User buying Windows XP. I can see the theoretical difference, because buying Windows XP you're only buying a permission to use the software, but at the same time, you're also paying for the distribution of the software to you. With OpenBSD, I don't pay for permission to use the software, I just pay for the distribution, plus the cover and some stickers and stuff.
Both of these ways, I see as two sides of the "buying software"-coin, because both are commercial uses of some software, either proprietary software or free software.

If you read the article, which I hope you do because it's a really good read, you could definitely say that OpenBSD is commercial software, both because they sell the CD sets of it, but also because they had some major DARPA funding for a while.

Like I said, read the article or else you'll not understand parts of this reply.

Tsuroerusu wrote: If you read the article, which I hope you do because it's a really good read, you could definitely say that OpenBSD is commercial software, both because they sell the CD sets of it, but also because they had some major DARPA funding for a while.

The DARPA affair was strange, i am glad Theo de Raadt spoke out.

allix wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote: If you read the article, which I hope you do because it's a really good read, you could definitely say that OpenBSD is commercial software, both because they sell the CD sets of it, but also because they had some major DARPA funding for a while.

The DARPA affair was strange, i am glad Theo de Raadt spoke out.

Amen to that! Long live free speech!