Though I've been around for some three years, using Trisquel daily, I've yet
to really post in here. Part of my silence is laziness; that much comes from
being a programmer. Another part is that I prefer to do the hard work of
something before feeling the need to opine about it. However, in this case, I
feel compelled to explain.
I was drawn to rms shortly before discovering Trisquel. I read some brief
portion of the FSF's site, having gotten there by linksurfing in Wikipedia,
having originally started on Linus Torvalds Wiki page. That happy accident
has greatly shaped who I am today. As soon as I discovered the FSF and rms, I
devoured as much as I could, as quickly as I could. I downloaded gigs of
OGGs, read hundreds of pages, and suffered through countless comment threads.
All to get my hands on every drop of Free Software philosophy.
I find it so incredibly in line wih my free market economic principles, and
my civil liberties stance, that I can't believe I never thought of it before.
From a free market perspective, free software simply asserts basic principles
of the market: software as a product is created by someone, and can be
transferred through exchange in the market. As soon as the exchange happens,
the software is no longer property of the creator, but of the purchaser. This
is personal property, and respect for it at its finest. Needless to say, not
many are interested in the details of economics, so I'll hold off there.
So I got to eventually thinking about how to transform the software industry.
How do we grab our culture by the horns and steer it? Restore the principles
of freedom to software. Realise that extraordinary profits are just that --
extra-ordinary -- and based off of monopoly control of a resource (that is
also not a free market principle). Free software can be made for profit in
many of the same ways: produce the software, and sell it to people. The only
difference is, the product you are selling respects the buyer's freedom to
use it. Will some people then copy the product and distribute it freely?
Certainly. There is no ethical problem with that. Will people still buy the
software if it can be obtained at no cost? Yes, there will still be
purchases. And as Stallman reminds us, it is often that people need help with
software. Either fixing bugs, troubleshooting or customising; that is huge
revenue.
I know this from experience. I work for a company that produces an internet
platform that is free software (though they mistakenly use the term "open
source"). We sell support contracts "for the enterprise" and give on-the-call
technical support and response. We consult and do customisations for a fee.
Unfortunately, the business folk up top thought we should make a proprietary
"Enterprise" version to attract the "big businesses". So we did, even though
it is nearly identical in source to the free software.
I know the founder; one day, after facing "pirated" Enterprise license keys
for our product, he let me know something. Though he was sad that someone
tried to "sabotage" him, he wasn't really bothered. "The money's not in the
software," he said, "it's in the support." You see, supporting our own
product made us enough profit to support paying developers to write it,
engineers to support and maintain it, a QA team, marketing, business, sales
and more.
Free software is as much business as hobby. Entrepreneurs can start
successful free software businesses; they just need to have enough savvy. My
dream is to open a free software game development firm and fill a void I have
felt is sorely there: high-quality, polished, free-software games.
Thank you to Trisquel, the community and rms for opening my eyes to a better
way to live.
- [Trisquel-users] The Economics of Free Softw... composr
-
