[Trisquel-users] What if we win?
jason at bluehome.net
Mon Feb 11 06:02:27 CET 2013
> Think about this scenario in the world for which the FSF strives:
> that somebody's created a really nice program, but the developer is
> a large sum for it. You simply search for one of the millions of
> have sprung up to redistribute software, and download the program
> There would be absolutely no market for software, because it would all
I would gladly pay someone to develop useful software, no matter where
I downloaded it from. If I like the software and wanted to support its
continued growth I would go back to the original developer and pay
them. Sure, everyone won't pay but then again not everyone's paying
for their copy of a proprietary program either.
There are other ways of going about this as well: Crowd funding is one
option. In this way the developer is paid upfront and since the
public's money is being used to fund the development, then the
software should really belong to the public and be Free.
In fact, crowd sourcing is a little bit safer than the traditional way
of doing business: If someone's going into business developing a
program there is no guarantee that they will be successful. With the
crowd funding model the public gets to decide if they like the
developer's idea by funding it in advance. Compare the alternative:
You set up a company, and go through all of this work and expense,
only to find out that it's a complete flop. Crowd funding eliminates
one of the risks associated with the traditional way of doing business.
These are just some ideas. Others in this thread have mentioned
others. You're really only limited by your imagination.
So your logic is flawed: Controlling the distribution and modification
of software is not a prerequisite. The only thing it's a prerequisite
is having power over people to keep them divided and helpless, which
is exactly the thing that the free software movement is working to stop.
More information about the Trisquel-users