[FSF-India] Re: Pappu's questions

[Pappu]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 02:14:48PM +0530, Varun Sinha wrote:
> 
> > 1) If you would pay for non-free software, why wouldn't you pay for the
> >    same software + FREEDOM?
> Because given a choice I would rather not pay. If I can get the software
> free of cost, why should I (with my Dad's average middle class/lower middle
> class income) pay for it. 
One good reason is to make sure that free software continues to be written.
It is a matter of educating the consumer.

> (with my Dad's average middle class/lower middle class income)
If you can't afford it, how will you pay for non-free software, and how
will the vendor survive? If you really do pay for non-free software, you
have the money. Spend it to buy some freedom :-))

> I pay for non-free software because I have to.
You have to pay for free software too. The problem is short sightedness.
You need software tomorrow also. Why insist on a law to force you to pay,
when you know that it is a right thing to do (and you have the money).

> >
> > 2) If you develop non-free software, what guarentee do I have that people
> >    will pay money for it, rather than copy it illegally from a friend?
> Because the non-free software industry is making billions of dollars doing
> so, which would make me think that despite piracy, I still can make money
The industry is making money because it is an organised entity. Individuals
can't make much money that way. In the same way, industry can make money 
from free software too.

> >
> > 3) If you hide your source code by just providing the binaries, what
> >    guarentee do you have that someone will not use some tool to reverse
> >    engineer your code and use it?
> Because it takes forever to disassemble large binaries, and even if u could
> read assembly language with the fluency that u can read source code (I don't
> know many people who can) u wouldn't be able to modify it much.
You do have really good tools that can give you the flow of the code in
more than just assembly. Further reading, understanding and modifying 
huge programs, even in source form is not a trivial matter. It also
requires great effort. 

You don't have to disassemble each and every instruction in a program
to find out the flow of code. Every huge program worth its name is
written modularly and can be easily broken down in to components.

Now an individual sitting in a garrage is not going to modify, redistribute
and eat up the market of a huge program. A larger entity with more resources
can easily do that, whether the source is available or not.

> u wouldn't be able to modify it much.
I was not talking about modifying a binary. Once you find out how a program
works, (the algorithms), you can write code to implement it in any language
of your choice.  It is not as difficult as you say.

> >
> > I believe that you can give me answers, since you seem to be convinced of
> > the economic viability of non-free software.
> I am all for free-software. I LOVE it, as a concept. All I am trying to do
> is figure out how people can make money out of it,
If you pay for free software, the developer is going to get money. You 
previously mentioned that you will pay for non-free s/w because you have
to. Think of the same way for free software. Spent money if you have it.
If you don't have money, a non-free software vendor is also not going
to get it from you. So there is no money involved.
 But if you don't have money, you still can use free software.

bye,
pappu.