Comments on: Bringing free software to the masses

Peter Brown of the Free Software Foundation hopes to "get the message of free software outside the hacker world."

[marileev]

Graphic caption-Peter Brown or Richard Stallman?

Still clicking my way throught the Q&A on the FSF, but did News.com's graphics person make a mistake? Is the photo of Mr. Peter Brown or Mr. Richard Stallman?

--Marilee V.
http://www.iwantmyess.com

[KarenSaid]

Thanks for the catch

Apologies for the error in the art. We have now posted a corrected graphic.

Thank you for spotting this and for bringing it to our attention. We appreciate your feedback.

[marileev]

Can't the Marketplace determine what's good software/code?

The FSF's Mr. Brown in the Newsmaker article stated that "If you love writing code, then you love free software, as you're sharing your code with people. So, straight away there is a community that loves the idea of free software. The other thing that free software allows is that code will never die."

But won?t the marketplace also determine what's good?

For example, Adobe's CS is a robust tool well liked by designers. As the company strives to improve its product for its customers, making the tool even more robust, new users and existing ones seek to purchase the tool and upgrades. That code is continually updated.

Isn't the marketplace also a venue which determines what "code will never die?"

--Marilee V.
http://www.iwantmyess.com

[HappyPappy]

I don't think so...

IMO the marketplace is more likely to kill good ideas and innovation than anything else.

Example...OS/2 at the time and for a while it was an infinitely better OS than Windows was and yet strictly due to marketting and not the marketlace and even less technical merit the product was "killed".

In this case good code died.

Adobe will keep updating and upgrading CS only as long as it can reap profits and I would argue they even build in obsolescence and withhold features for the sake of the next upgrade.

If this is marketplace driven code then it's not good code or at least not the best possible code.

So in answer to your question...."I don't think so".

But that's not what he's saying.

The marketplace determines which code *will* die. If Adobe loses its competitive edge, their products could die.

Abandoned free and open-source software is still available for people to use and even update.

Do a web search for the SeaMonkey web browser. It's an updated version of the Mozilla Application Suite; the interface still bears a striking resemblance to its ancestor, Netscape 4. The Mozilla Foundation abandoned the App Suite in favor of Firefox and Thunderbird, but for whatever reason there's still a community devoted to this relic. Because of the software's free/open-source license, a small group of programmers was able to add the latest rendering engine to their old interface and make this new piece of software that appeals to a certain group of consumers.

Free software isn't anti-market, despite the penchant for a number of its true believers to pitch it in revolutionary terms. The phenenom can also easily be described in market terms. I'll start with one: commoditization. Microsoft has been commoditizing software with a proprietary model too, by including products in the operating system. Netscape and Real Networks saw their original business models dry up when this competitor commoditized their market segments.

But when Microsoft did it, it created vendor lock-in. And that led to stagnation. Look at how outdated IE got, with all its security holes and lack of support for so many modern web design techniques. They're just now playing catch-up, and who can say if they would have done it at all if Mozilla Firefox hadn't been doing so well!

Software freedom seems to be serving consumers very well.

[Blito]

Useless code and art will die

This is a legal license that allows the marketplace to determine what's good or bad, not a locked in company. So basically I, as the consumer, decide if I want a song or software and not the service industry deciding for me. Things tend to be categorized very well this way precisely focused to the exact needs of the customer.
I think that this license more determines what type of ownership is good or bad; not the consumer end. The Better Business Bureau is more for consumer rights.

He says code wont die but I think more realistically that free software and free media (creative commons) will ensure that BAD code or Art will surely die, I sincerely hope so as I'm sick of people humping their way to the top. So consumers decide in the end. Places like www.musicnow.com are a good start by putting most of what's out there in front of your face well categorized, but still, there are too many restrictions that are limiting the true innovation that I see over at the Creative Commons websites. Check out the CC's free media bin. I think there are some CC tools to categorize music as well or there working on it.

I'm sick of artists and musicians allowing the service industry to run their music. Record companies are a service to record your music. They are supposed to be a paid service working for you. I think if a musician wants to NOT allow people to own their work after you purchased it, then he should state it himself and contract it himself instead of hiding behind the skirts of the music industry. Stop being a wimp.

The GNU allows the original author to maintain ownership by insisting that and holder retain the original contract and release the code freely.
I am against a company purchasing something and then deleting the original intent or author who created it. It's counter-industrial.

So I think a good protest term for GNU would be AUTHOR'S INTENT for CONSUMER'S RIGHTS.
or GNU: AVOID STINKY SOFTWARE
or CREATIVE COMMONS: ALLOW GOOD VIBES TO REACH YOUR EARS.or CREATIVE COMMONS: STOP PAY TO PLAY. We will not pay EXTRA to release our music anymore! We will not allow our music to be filtered by non-consumers!

I envision a solid future where products are very quality because on efficiency (think about the spaceships and other high end tech) of original intent, while other companies help each other out by not being redundant and recreating the same design over and over;.because they destroyed the original one. Everyone usually agrees that there's nothing better then the original.
Also we are living in a society of waste and redundancy. This can't happen anymore because tech has become too fast, as we build houses and things so quick, we need to slow down and promote more quality if we are to survive.
Instead of thinking about what we have we are thinking how much more we need all the time. This 'more' stuff has to stop.

[Andrew J Glina]

Interesting

For one who believes in giving away software, it seems a bit odd that his only publised program was sold.

[Blito]

Free as in consumer ownership

It was open source yet the GNU allows you to make money still. Free software means freedom after and before purchase not the sale point.

non-free products is just a preemptive move by companies to maximize their profits by limiting resources with false scarcity.

[yeah_1_us]

nothing could be better, finaly I'm going to have my dreams come through, and, having some software for I cannot afford the prices, thanks a million, and the Eternal father protect you and affiliates from malware, incredible, microsoft is also up to no good, I've lost three computers because of them, how about that eh!