On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 17:45, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 12:51, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > > Yes but....
> > >
> > > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
> > > years and cost $X million to develop.
> > >
> > > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
> > > my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
> >
> > No, not you. Bad is the people you work for: the code you write is not
> > yours.
>
> So since I work for myself and own my own companies, thus I own the code
> and I own the decision of what is published, I am the bad person?
>
> Thanks! Look how much I have given away, gee it is nothing.
> Only 80% or more of all IDE chipsets, I personally wrote.
> I am not allowed to make money to feed my family, pay from the cost of
> membership to standards, pay for the cost of joining working groups for
> new technology, pay for the cost of travel to the fore mentioned.
>
> Yet you bitch and whine and hold your hand out for me to do it for free?
>
> Well everything has a cost.
>
> You know I still have plans to open source a version of a current product
> after I make some money and recover the 18 months of development, hardware
> cost, travel, trade show, future membership dues. Why, because it is the
> right thing to do, and it will benefit me in the long run, and the open
> source. It also will raise the bar for what people expect.
>
> So I am bad, gee thanks.
>
> Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported.
> I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support
> services.
>
> > You still don't understand the diference between the 'free' and 'Free
> > for Freedom'.
>
> I understand that "FREE" does not pay the mortgage, pay for food, or pay
> employees, or anything else. So you think GPL is welfare for the
> underclass, nice.
I ask you some questions.
You make software. You have a business model, to make money, where you
sell software. The software that you sell is NOT Free. Imagine, now,
that you change the business model, continuing to make money, where the
software you produce is Free. Wouldn't it be better?
In the end, the fundamental question is: Wouldn't it be a better world
if all software was Free and people continued to make money in other
ways? You know the advantages and disadvantages of Free Software, so
answer this question and you will understand my point of view.
Of course, I understand your point of view too. You think you can't make
money any other way other than sell non-Free Software. But maybe, just
maybe, that is possible, even for those that make games and don't see
any other possibility.
You understand now why I say that Free Software is good and non-Free
Software is bad?
I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. I would
not fight for my country, because I don't believe in war, no matter
what. I believe no one should fight. You may say it is a bad position:
my country can be invaded, etc. and I must defende it. I say NO, I WILL
NOT FIGHT. I am convicted that no one should fight and I tell every body
they should not fight. I tell you: Don't fight. I believe the world
would be better if there were no wars. Most people would probably say
that I'm a fool, or maybe a wimp, but that is my philosophy.
The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that
every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole,
but if I am, at least, I'm an asshole with convictions. And I'm
convinced that the world would be a better place if ALL software was
Free Software.
-- Marco Monteiro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:00:22 EST