Why software isn't free

[Omaroo]

I saw this ditty on a Mac tech forum. It holds true whether the software some people expect for nearly free is truly worth $3.99, $39.99 or $399.00. I suspect that many people would like this costly resource to be almost given away, and can't understand why it costs what it costs and still assume that software that "costs" is a rip-off. As a software producer, I can agree with the overall sentiment of this clipping. This article cites Apple as a major supplier of discount software (i.e. they sell it for far less than it's normally considered to be worth), but it also reads true for Adobe, Microsoft et al to a degree. Adobe is a little different because they are a software-only house, so discounting high-end software would not generally be good business.

[Zaps]

One thing I notice more with each passing day/month/year is that the software I consider to be worth the most is free, while the rest is seldom worth the asking price.

Not always, of course; but often enough to be interesting.

[DJDD]

i think similar sentiments would hold true in many industries:
farming, dairy, transport & logistics, manufacturing, retail...

[supernova1965]

The one and only thing that irks me when buying software be it games or Productivity software is that a lot of sellers seem to think that I am only buying the software for as long as the Medium (DVD,CD) lasts lets face it they will not last I have not paid for a piece of pretty looking plastic that makes nice reflections everwhere. I have paid for software that should be available for me to use forever. I know that some software has a yearly fee involved and to be honest I don't buy that software for that reason.

[RickS]

The difference is with software (and music or video) is that you can copy it essentially for free.

I'm in the software business too, but for the past decade or two I have been building it into hardware devices. It's easier to ask for money when you have a physical device...

[ballaratdragons]

Although I find it very generous and helpful, I often wonder how some guys like Patrick Chevalley and others can spend enormous time on fantastic programs, then give them away!



Ricci from Italy (also a programmer who gives his programs for free) has posted a thread in here and other Astro Forums containing hundreds of totally FREE Astronomy software programs.

[supernova1965]

Actually you can not copy it for free it wont work again through (protection from pirates even though I am not a pirate I pay for my software but I cant make a backup against the enivetable failure of the medium:shrug:) which goes to my previous post about the medium not lasting you cant make a backup of you purchase and if the medium fails for whatever reason even through natural wear and tear

[Omaroo]

That's usually a passion thing Ken, but it's increasingly becoming a mainstream business model too. Take Mozilla for example. These guys are wanting to change the world. Linus Torvalds (Linux) and plenty of others do it for many reasons - learning, proving that it can be done better, peeing off a competitor, etc. They sometimes capitalise on their effort at later stages after what they've done has become ubiquitous.

[RickS]

You can certainly copy the bits & bytes. Some software does come with licensing which attempts to limit this, but it's not always successful (almost never against a determined and clueful copier). The failure of the medium is rarely an issue these days if you take some simple precautions and make a backup of your license data.

[supernova1965]

Games in particular like SIMCITY 4 will not work from a backup even if you have your license key and I have Ceasar 4 that I can no longer play because the CD has tiny scratches that are unavoidable because you must have the disc in the drive to play the game if you are honest, sure there are cracks out there but that is why they put this protection in the software in the first place. And you can not install these games if your media gets damaged and you can't install from backup media some solution needs to be found for people who wish to reward the makers of software for their hard work but also want to be able to continue to use their purchase without having to crack it with a nocd crack or whatever. Another game which I love to play wont work with Win7 because the protection software is incompatible with it. It is virtual skipper I have no need to buy the latest version because the one I have has great graphics and game play but the stupid protection system doesn't like Win7 or Win7 doesn't like it either way I am stopped from using software that I have paid for.

[GrampianStars]

the same reason petrol isn't free for your car.
There's $$$$$$$$$$$$ to be made!
and your computer and car is useless without
forking out $$$$$$$$$$$ regularly to keep em running! :rolleyes:

[DJDD]

i did not take the original post to be referencing digital piracy but rather that there is the expectation that software should be free (or almost) without recognising that someone should be rewarded financially for their hard work.

hence my comment that people in most industries would hold similar sentiments.

[RickS]

I don't buy games, so perhaps that's an exception. My major software purchases are things like Maxim and Photoshop...

[RickS]

I wasn't talking about piracy either. There is a fundamental difference between software development and many other industries. Software is scalable. You write it once and it can be used many times. The examples you quoted: "farming, dairy, transport & logistics, manufacturing, retail" are different in that there's a direct, linear connection between work done and payment demanded. I do agree with your point that effort should be rewarded if it produces a useful outcome. I was just trying to explain that there's a nuance here that's not obvious to everybody.

[irwjager]

Open Source Software is brilliant. As an independent software developer, it keeps my costs down, which in turn gives me enough time (and savings) to develop stuff on the side and contribute back.

Of course you can still charge an arm and a leg but you'll find that a competitor will be able to undercut you because of the low/zero cost of the development tools.

I think with OSS, everyone wins. It's about give and take.

If you're in the business of independently creating commercial software for a living though, it's almost always going to be a struggle. The market is saturated with software and you have to really do something extremely unique to stand out. Even then, within a couple of months there will be people who have copied your idea and you're back to square one.

It also comes down to how much you think your time is worth and what sort of standard of living you think you're entitled to. Me, I live like a hippie in a shared rental eating the occasional beans on toast. However, I get to do what I love; write software that people (seem to) appreciate. :P

I don't understand developers that use draconian DRM measures. The last thing you should do is p**s off your users. If you do that then your heart clearly isn't in it and it's clearly more about the money than it is about the thrill of coming up with the next improvement/feature/algorithm and delighting your users. But maybe I'm just a bit of a naive ueber nerd... :lol:

[AstralTraveller]

Being a happy Linux user I'll turn the question around and ask why should I pay for software when I can have a machine that does everything I want for nothing? I don't game and I don't use anything fancy. The 'doze programs I use are all freeware too and run under WINE. I don't know what it is so that I can do this. It's not as though I refuse to pay, it is that others chose not to ask for payment for their (often considerable) labour. If knowing that people are happily using their creation is reward enough I'm happy to provide it.:)

[leon]

I really don't mind paying for software at all, I expect to as a lot of work went into what I use, but I do expect it to last as long as I intend to use it.

It's a bit like my purchase of Microsoft Office, which worked fine until they, Microsoft decided to send me a up date that I did not want or ask for, now the bloody program is stuffed and wont work.:mad2:

I have researched the web on this update, and it seems that everyone, other than computer wizards are experiencing the same failure, and don't know what to do with it :shrug:

Even Microsoft have admitted that the there is a problem with this up date, well that is all good and well, why didn't they, just put it out there with a warning of the possible problem, and let the owner of the purchased software decide to load it up or stay with what worked. :shrug:

If it aint broke don't fix it, is my motto. ;)

Leon :thumbsup:

[Omaroo]

Yep - opeb source is all done for free, and you can't expect to earn decent money from an OS project.

Did someone tell Red Hat (free as in beer) this? Not bad revenue for a "free" software provider...



Open source software IS NOT free. You may be free to give it away, but it certainly isn't free to develop.

[joe_smith]

People give their Free time and some even pay money to help develop open source software ( the *real meaning as in the "free software definition") because its a win win situation the more that goes into it the more they get out of it. I like the philosophy of open source and what it stands for. I like they way its promoted for everyone the rich and poor, for example Ubuntu's philosophy.They develop and promote open source because of a love of the system it represents not just the money they can make. Even Apple uses open source in its operating system. I read on the net that some in the apple camp don't like the Iphone being a closed system and feel android will take over the market place making the billions with a free and open OS. imagine if apple did that!!!! how much more market share would they have and how much extra income would they make? android proves open source is a very smart business choice.

You miss the whole point of the open source movement you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not free as in “free beer.” People support open source, because they have open hearts and want to make a difference to others, some believe when John Lennon said "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace" for some this is more powerful and rewarding than any money can buy. All this sounds like a load of "whatever" but it is happening in the open source movement its what's drives it and why its so big and so global, the Internet we have to day is because of the open source movement. People doing it for the love of it, for what it stands for and not just the money, That's the true power of love. Even some of the software people use here the authors give it away free, I wonder why? they must get the satisfaction of people being happy using it then getting money for it, because they could if they wanted to.

[Barrykgerdes]

Hi

Yes there are two ways to look at software, as a tool and as entertainment. By entertainment I don't mean games and the like. I mean writing programs for the fun of it without any particular commercial interest.

As a tool in commerce, companies use softaware to make money and will employ programmers (or contractors ) to write these programs which need to be paid for, quite rightly so. This is what all the commercial programs are about. Even "open source material can be classed as such"

On the other hand there are people like me who write little programs for fun and never think about the cost of development and supply them "free" to anyone who is interested. These people however are generally rewarded in other ways like honing skills etc. and of course eventually make money out of the "training". I would put all open source softaware in this catagory. Most of it is written by programmers who make money from their work in other ways so, is it really free?. As someone else said, The only thing that can be given free is "love" as if it is not given free it cannot be "love"

My pet program is Stellarium which is open source but the developer was in fact employed by ESO for three years to develop an open source version for them. This allowed him much time to develop the "free" version which most of you know.

Barry

[Omaroo]

I don't think so and it's possibly even naive to think it. There aren't too many hobby gardeners out there who will come and mow my lawn for free. No one is ever going to devote their life to an open source project without adequate compensation somewhere down the line. O/S is considered by most code cutters I know (and that's a lot) as being something cool to be involved with, but not much more.

Red Hat for example, as an open source enterprise, used to heavily push the concept of "free as in beer" (i.e. it didn't cost anything to purchase by a user) AND "free as in speech" (source) to establish itself as a player in the server operating system market. Once free to download and contribute to - not any more. Now that it's done this it's like any other business - it's neither beer nor speech that they're interested in. "Jeez.... you mean we can make money outta this?'

As Barry quite rightly says - there's a major difference between those writing open source code to become recognised, make a difference, have fun, be generous with their time or beautifully philanthropic - to those who write it for commercial application. The problem with a LOT of open source code is that it does not pass muster when it comes to commercial rigidity. It merely floats out there until someone is interested enough to pick it up and run with it and supply better code back to the pool, at the end of the day meaning that lots of it is almost constantly useless for mission critical application.

[RickS]

A lot of FOSS development is actually done by employees of commercial operations during their work hours, with the blessing of their employer. I have been involved in a couple of companies developing network appliances based on embedded Linux. We have gained huge leverage from using FOSS software and in return we have made major contributions back to the Linux kernel and other projects. Several of my colleagues spend a significant proportion of their working hours as maintainer of FOSS projects. The company is enlightened enough to recognize that this is a benefit to them.

The quality of FOSS projects does vary widely, but some of it (usually popular and widely used applications) is very good and as well supported as any proprietary product. Some proprietary software is truly awful as well ;)

Cheers,
Rick.

[Barrykgerdes]

I agree with Rick. In my work for a gigantic engineering, electrical, weapons, electronics mainenance facility I always encouraged my staff to do their FO's that were associated with their trades, particularly for members of other trades in the organisation. There was plenty of time as long as they did their assigned tasks first and the access to similar facilities in other trades developed real camarade in an organisation that was very demarkised and unionised

This is a real asset to employers as it saves on training time and often develops skills that can used in assigned tasks. It also keeps them from getting bored with routine tasks. It also keeps them open about what they are doing and pass information on to fellow staff.

Barry

[RickS]

Some good points that I didn't mention, Barry! FOSS projects offer excellent skill and career development opportunities for the software engineers. Conversely, a supportive attitude from the company helps to recruit the very best people.

Cheers,
Rick.

[irwjager]

Sorry Chris, but that's a patently false statement. Most websites are hosted on Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP stacks and various stock exchanges around the world run on Linux. Linux is ubiquitous in datacenters and most of the phones that are sold today run Linux and OpenSource software.

The different licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc.) almost guarantee that the quality of software is high.

Most developers don't start from scratch, but base their software on a set of pre-existing frameworks and libraries. The GPL and LGPL guarantee that the part of your program that constitutes these libraries can always be updated, either because your source is (must be) available and can be recompiled, or because those frameworks are separate objects that plug into your program - that is a choice you have as developer.

This means that the GPL/LGPL guarantees that users can avail from any updates and bugfixes to parts of the software that you didn't write originally. So even if you will never update your code ever again, your actual program may still avail of bugfixes and performance increases years later because of fixes to the libraries and frameworks.

Then there is the trickle down effect. If you find (and fix) a bug in a framework or library, this fix is (should be) immediately available to everyone who uses that same library or framework. You just not only improved your own app, but also the app of thousands of others.

This 'mandatory' trickle down effect ensures you start off with quality tools, frameworks and libraries from the get-go. Ofcourse you're still free to build a shoddy app on top of that.:P Plenty of those around, whether they're open source or not...

I should add that, personally, I like writing things from scratch and am not a big fan of using other people's libraries and frameworks. This is mainly borne out of the desire to keep things compact and as platform independent as possible, which means that I can not rely on platform dependent libraries and frameworks. My stuff (StarTools) is therefore closed source because there's no need or benefit to comply with any license.

[Omaroo]

Sorry Ivo, I'm not referring to mainstream LAMP fare. I thought that'd be obvious. You seem to be under the false assumption that I have it in somehow for open source - and you'd be a long way from the truth. I run my entire business on multiple Centos5 installations running both Apache and Glassfish, MySQL and rather a lot of PHP & JSP application code. I'm talking about the great bulk of smaller projects you find on Sourceforge that I come across that are unstable, unfinished and perpetually undergoing undisciplined change. On the flip side there are a also a great many fabulous projects which commercial operations could learn from. I've been tooling around with Linux and open source since its inception - and prior to that Minix - the original open source Unix-like O/S. I'm not new to this.

I'm not sure why this thread has degenerated into an open source vs. commercial software war. Open source was never mentioned in the opening post. I agree with nearly all of what has been said in its defence - but I'm not sure why it was necessary in the first place. Maybe if we could steer back to the original topic please?

[RickS]

I didn't think the thread had quite degenerated into a war. I think you're just getting some robust discussion from the people that think that "13 Reasons Why Some Software Is Not Free" or "13 Reasons Why Software Is Not Free to Produce" might be more accurate than the original "13 Reasons Why Software Is Not Free" :)

Cheers,
Rick.

[Omaroo]

Good point Rick. Maybe the title should have been "13 reasons why you shouldn't expect all software to be free". Howzat? :)

[RickS]

Excellent, Chris! :thumbsup:

[irwjager]

Sorry Chris - didn't mean to offend in any way! :sadeyes:

I was merely trying to show how (free) OSS has one up on closed source by explaining how enforcing some of the OSS licenses actually facilitate better working code, making some (free) OSS a more trustworthy proposition for mission critical applications than closed source.

Of course SourceForge is full of funky little projects that are in constant flux, some of questionable quality. But that's in contrast to... nothing at all (closed source). My point is you can't really say that open source is less suitable for mission critical applications, solely based on the availability of code, since you don't have anything to compare it with. I'm sure there's plenty of (closed source) code sitting in people's hard drives that's equally as questionable.

Debate is good, war is bad :) If I offended, please accept my apologies.

In all fairness, the topic is "Why software isn't free". I do believe that OSS (as advocated by the Free Software Foundation) touches on a good few discussion points as to what 'free' means in the context of software and software development.

[joe_smith]

Because its what us humans do best lol

but seriously open source software is free, you are free to use it and free to modify it for your own needs. With commercial software you are locked into a licence agreement that states you may not modify the code, most of the time with commercial software you buy a licence to use the program, not the program itself. It you want to change something in the program to suit your business needs you cant, Open source is free in that way.

hmmm some might, but i would say a lot of commercial programs that people pay for are the same, just check the computer section for problems with paid apps. I only use open source on my computer and I can do anything that I can do with a commercial OS

I agree they used open source code to make money and the free software foundation says you are entitled to do this. They have a closed version of their OS but they also have and support, the growth of open source with their Fedora project OS. thus giving back which is also one of the rules.

Maybe in the commercial software world you might need 13 reasons after all they only write software to make money. But in the open source world money is not the goal “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. You dont put a price on it because if you do you take away the whole philosophy of open source and try to drag it back into the commercial domain where money as usual is the goal.

[RickS]

Hey Joe (hmm... that's a catchy line!)

IMHO there is a place for FOSS and there is a place for commercial software. Both have value and neither is the solution for every problem.

FOSS excels at infrastructural applications and for applications that are interesting enough to attract and keep the attention of a significant developer community.

Commercial applications are likely to remain the only choice for more specialized applications and unusual requirements.

Software developers need to eat too, so there's always going to be a need to make money from software somehow...

Cheers,
Rick.

[irwjager]

That's a nice summary of my thoughts exactly Rick! :thumbsup:

[norm]

I don't have problem for paying for s/w, but for the life of me, why don't they make it cheaper?

Eg, MS 2010 goes for say $350-$500, wouldn't they be better off charging say $25-$50 instead. I'd be more incline to think if that was the case, more mums and dads, students could afford it and therefore more inclined to pick up a legit version.

I understand fully the years of development and support that goes into these products etc, but when they charge these prices, its no wonder piracy exists.

Its not like Microsoft couldn't afford to drop the prices even for their O/Ses.

Norm

[Terry B]

I expect to pay for software but object to being ripped off.
My standard software used at work (a medical script writing program) has beeen getting more expensive for years. It has pretty much got a monopoly with over 70% usage in my industry. It was cheap initially which is how it got its high usage. My fees for the last 12 months was about $6000 to use a programme that has barely changed in many years. We haven't used support for the programme for years so don't really get any benefit from the high cost apart from the essential updates.
The company that owns the software now isn't the same one as originally produced the programme. It is now a cash cow for an investor.