> a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software. Your argument is invalid.
It works now, and as of yet, there's been no better model demonstrated, despite no lack of trying.
> And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech).
If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software.
> If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software
This is true of most anything, but doesn't stop consumer protection laws from existing. Moreover, most people agree that consumer protection laws are reasonable and necessary.
Most consumer protection laws have to do with curtailing dishonest or misrepresentative behaviors -- eg, selling a defective product, misrepresenting product features, etc.
Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea.
However, my real point was just that people's being able to not buy your product is no defense: it doesn't work in consumer protection cases and shouldn't work here.
Moreover, consumer protection isn't just about dishonesty: even if you represent your product perfectly accurately, you still can't sell certain (mostly dangerous) things. For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it.
> Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea.
It's not defective according to the people buying it. That's what matters.
> For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it.
This analogy is not particularly applicable to consumer software, and applies mainly to liability. A lawyer would need to step in here, as I'm guessing neither of us are experts in consumer product liability.
I'm pretty sure it's not a matter of liability--it's simply against the law to sell a car without certain safety features (like airbags). Moreover, there are good reasons for a customer to not want airbags--they make the car heavier and that kills acceleration and handling.
So there is plenty of precedent--just because a customer would be fine with something (like less safety) does not necessarily justify it.
>If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software.
They could most likely not make an informed choice, because you do not educate them
about denying them their freedom. And still there is no argument to do it.
> I don't see any other viable economically proven method to fund our consumer software development.
Apparently you have never heard of RedHat. You missed a billion dollar company. They release their software for free, as CentOS, as well. But they sell costumer support on top of that. It WORKS.
Do you consider Windows a consumer software or not? I see pretty much a big need of support needed for that one. Just look at all the forums dedicated to solving its shortcomings.
Hmm. Should Rovio sell Angry Birds support contracts?
Windows occupies a rather unique market position of ubiquity and scale, and its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and runtimes, Metro, etc.
I'm not a Windows expert, but it's pretty undeniable that Apple and MS pour bucket loads of cash into their respective platforms. Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on closed-source software.
Underneath it all is closed source hardware (like those graphics chipsets and proprietary processor cores). Nobody tends to complain about that, since spending millions on hardware development is out of reach. Making use of software source code is equally out of reach to nearly all users: thus, they just don't care.
>its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs
in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and
runtimes, Metro, etc.
Bullshit. The estimated cost to redevelop the Linux kernel in a proprietary
environment exceeds 600 million USD, and has probably even reached the billion
USD mark by now.[1]. It's perfectly possible.
The only reason Windows is still so entrenched on the market are shady monopolist
tactics, intentional lock-in practices and closed, shitty formats such as the
Office pseudo-standard. In other words, the very things RMS warned about and which
the free software community is fighting against.
>Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of
the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on
closed-source software.
Your ramblings are so dishonest it's cringe-worthy. GNU/Linux is perfectly viable
on the desktop. The greatest hurdle it faces is exactly the kind of FUD that
you are spreading.
As for the drivers: yes, and this is a problem. The evil of proprietary hardware
and closed specs is something that needs to go the way of the dodo, too, and
it needs to do so fast. We could have drivers vastly exceeding anything
proprietary if the specs for nVidia or ATI/AMD cards would be accessible. For
the record, the best graphic drivers available for GNU/Linux are for the Intel
Graphic chips, and they are perfectly free.
It works now, and as of yet, there's been no better model demonstrated, despite no lack of trying.
> And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech).
If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software.