On 11/05/2008, Thomas Ibbotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim Dobson wrote: > > ========== > > RMS Video: > > ========== > > > > The video of last week's Manchester Free Software, (in collaboration > > with the BCS and IET) talk by Richard Stallman has been released, thanks > > to Andrew John Hughes. > Thanks for this. I've finally had the time to watch it, I found it very > entertaining and interesting. I've never heard a talk by Richard > Stallman, he clearly does that sort of thing a lot and has some very > well laid out and convincing arguments. > > I am interested in particular in the relationship between software > freedom, copyright and patenting. There seems to be a problem here in a > clash between the rights of the users and the rights of the > creators/inventors. I agree that it is right for users to be in control > of the software that they own, and that a part of that is the > requirement that they should be able to obtain the help of others in > getting that control by providing copies of the code both modified and > not to allow others to help them modify it to do what they want (if it > doesn't already!). > > However, I am also in favour of credit being given where it's due, and > allowing creators/inventors to profit from their work. If someone has > put in the time and effort to create or improve something that other > people would like to use, surely they should be allowed to profit from it.
I'm going to ignore patents in this argument, because applying them to software is just stupid (see link below). However, applying a different copyright, such as the GPL does not stop credit from being given to the author - in fact it's usually up there at the top of every file. I would say I know the authors of more free software than proprietary software. How to make money from free software is an interesting and difficult topic but you only have to have a quick look around the Internet to see that an increasing number of companies are managing. As a software developer myself I expect to be paid for my work (excluding volunteer work), the license applied to the end product does not change that, it just means that in the case of free software that the customer gets a fair deal. Personally, I work for the tax payer (like a large number of people in this country), so I think it's particularly important that the work is released under a free license. Dont' forget that new software is always going to be needed and companies will still pay to have it written. In addition, about 80% of all software is solely developed and used inhouse anyway, so the license is not really relevant in those cases. I believe it's possible to make money from free software, by being paid to write a new/alter an existing program, from support and merchandise, and probably from many other ways that I've not considered. But, ultimately, like Stallman said in his talk, there's no fundamental right to having a job as a programmer; if it comes to it there's always other jobs you can do and you can still program in your spare time. The important bit is releasing the program as free software, so that other people can benefit. I would recommend looking at the articles and essays on this site for more and better information: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html I hope that makes sense, it's very early at the moment! -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/