Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caesar.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!emory!stiatl!meo
From: meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Stallman's attitude
Message-ID: <8078@stiatl.UUCP>
Date: 7 Dec 89 21:30:32 GMT
Organization: Roadkills-R-Us
Lines: 50

Several people have suggested that (a) hardware SHOULD cost, because
it costs the producer, whereas software does not, and that (b) it's
ok to charge for support but not the software.

A) Even after you remove the "bought physical resources" in hardware,
   someone has to design, build, test, etc, the product, and any
   number of people then may make a profit on it, including but
   not limited to: owners, officers, engineers, technicians, sales
   people, marketeers, lawyers, secretaries, janitors, shippers,
   the phone company, various governments, sanitation engineers ( 8^),
   assembly line personnel, etc. These types of things are the case
   with software, as well, or have their counterparts.

   To have a software shop that will make me a living, I have to have
   (at a minimum) space, a computer, development software, utilities,
   and money to pay the bills to produce the product that will pay the
   bills in the future (or invest personal time away from family and
   friends after working a full time job).

   To expect that the only right choice is for me to then GIVE AWAY
   that software is patently ridiculous, IMO. If Richard Stallman,
   or anyone else, chooses to do so, that's fine. To state that it's
   immoral for someone else NOT to do so (and RMS has done just that)
   is somewhere between ludicrous and immoral.

B) Since support is essentially the same as software (ie, mostly time,
   experience and knowledge), this argument makes no sense to me. Why
   shouldn't the support be free, as well?


As to the person who mentioned the warranty problem, I wholeheartedly
agree. It's one of the severe problems I have with (for example) the U.S.
auto industry. For the price of the stupid "extended" warranty, they could
do a whole lot more right the FIRST time.


If my software gets to market, I fully intend to blow most of the current
warranties out of the water.


Finally, I am not opposed to free software. Some of what I write is for
free distribution - some of it is for making a living. In fact, there's
a good metaphor here. The same thing applies to a lot of musicians. So
why shouldn't music be free? While I have a rather low opinion of the
entertainment/media in general, and find it silly that various crazed
people can become millionaires overnight by playing on teenager's
emotions, I certainly wouldn't try to ban them from making their money
that way.

-Miles