Reasons to not use free software

[steevc]

Article written by a commercial developer

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/why ... iew-173755

I'm not convinced by all their arguments, but I can appreciate that support can be difficult for someone developing free software unless people will pay to get it. I think that you will often find free software developers more responsive in fixing bugs or adding features.

--
Steve

[raboof]

The author is responding to the 'The top 10 reasons to use free music software' article (http://www.musicradar.com/tuition/tech/ ... are-160787).

Responding to the false or debatable so-called 'reasons to use free music software' is great - the article certainly deserved some balance - but it doesn't make them 'reasons you shouldn't use free software'.

I'm pretty sure the IK Multimedia guys didn't intend the article as such, and some hype-seeking marketing guy added that caption.

[zettberlin]

These people talk about software that is free as in beer - free software is quite different.

There is NO reason not to develop free software for commercial reasons - you only have to accept, that the user can do what he/she likes with the program and its sources as you distribute it. If there would be a book on Ardour with a DVD in it with sources and binaries compiled with full VST-support and tutorials etc. and PD and the ardour people would charge € 150,- for it and forbid copying it expect the sources - well this would be perfectly in phase with the GPL in both word and spirit.

If someone works on free software, he/she does so to make something he/she likes - if others say: "OK nice, but could you implement this or that also or could you provide a phone-number where I can call for 4-5 Cent/minute if I run in trouble with your app?"
It is perfectly OK to answer:" Yes me could do all that and more, what are you willing to pay for?"

There are Donation-Buttons on many free software sites. And there should be more! Be proud of your work! Take the responsibility that comes with payment! I have donated some money for Ardour and I would be glad to do so for projects like Specimen, Seq24 or LV2.

And by the way: I dislike the term "donation" its NOT welfare -- its rewarding good work.
"Financial contribution" would be more appropriate for my taste...

[steevc]

There's a long discussion of the article at

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2008/09/1 ... the-point/

Life must be tough for software companies when people pirate their software, but that has nothing to do with others giving their product away for free.

I'm glad to be able to try out various software for free, but would be willing to donate to anything I use a lot. I've not got to that stage with audio software yet.

--
Steve

[glas-noise]

Problem for him is is probably that he make his money with developing software, not sure if
he would say this if he didn't depend on it. Its freedom anyway if people will develop software
for their own interest and give it away, his point of few shouldn't change that.
Truth is that some "free" software includes lots off treasure to make an income on a different way.
If people become depended from software they try to find a alternative or develop an
alternative themselves, in short it's a reaction while microblows says: don't develop an alternative stay depending on us, be our slaves and pay.
But I agree that give donations to free developers for their work could really help a lot.
But also if you ask people: will you accept to be completely depending in what you want and are supposed to do on company's authority they might slightly change their point of view.
It would be crazy to pay to much for banana's if you can grow them yourself, and if you can't eat them all,you have the right to give it away, their always people complain about that, like in this article.

[^rooker]

The article has no real argumentative base.
Obviously, the author mistakes "freeware" and "free software" (also in the original article that caused him to write this reply).

I was really amazed to see that most viewers' replies contained profound arguments *for* free software.

[raboof]

Obviously, the author mistakes "freeware" and "free software" (also in the original article that caused him to write this reply).

Not sure if they really `mistake' the terms - indeed they're both talking about 'free music software' in general, not 'Free Software' in the specific RMS sense of the phrase...

[^rooker]

Maybe.
However, some readers are definitely referring to free software (as in GPL) - otherwise some of their comments would not make sense.

I would let this article rest. The author is probably quite stubborn and emotional (e.g. the "mum and dad" reference), so we should rather spend our time on something constructive, than providing feedback to someone who's ears probably ain't open anyway.

[dArAzAc]

I agree with zett for the most part. I disagree with several points on both articles, and believe it or not, I tend to side more with the Reasons to NOT use free software more. Maybe it's merely because that article is a defense whereas Reasons TO use is more of an attack, also neither authors mentioned anything about being able to help yourself out by studying the code, they never mentioned Freedom or the GPL-- which are the reasons that I choose to use Free software.

Edit*: Morning Grammar