foust@gumby.UUCP (07/29/85)
I have this idea floating around in my head that I can't get rid of. Why can't information be free? I see the present system of software marketing as fading into the background, and that sooner or later, most computer software will be public domain or freeware. I don't know if sales of software will drop significantly, but I think that future sales will be restricted to lemmings buying the latest version of Jazz, or to custom programming houses, while more informed users will use public domain stuff for most tasks. Public domain software is getting better and better. Often, it comes with print-it-yourself documentation and source code. The two PC programs I use most were free, (Kermit and CED) and they came with long, well-written manuals. Most of the utilities I use are public domain, too. Remember how all the old CP/M utilities migrated to PC-DOS? Why won't this keep happening? I know, Kermit was fostered in a university environment. But I feel an evolution in software. The compiler I use was purchased, but I have no doubt that someday, there will be freeware C compilers that will rival the ones for sale now. Since so many future software developers are cutting their teeth on systems with free access to Unix source, it seems hard to believe that they won't be using ideas and algorithms they saw while in school. The next generation of public domain software will reflect this. The net has already seen free micro versions of 'make', and the Gnu Manifesto. Whatever weird amalgam of altruism and socialism Richard Stallman (?) smokes, I bet he'll succeed in public domain Unix. Even the mighty Deathstar can't battle this kind of migration of ideas. It seems kind of ironic, that the buddy-buddy relationship between corporations and universities might backfire in this way. Why shouldn't information be free? Today, many forms are nearly free, like television. Forget the ads. Books are cheap. Plagiarism aside, you don't have to sign a non-disclosure agreement that says you won't use the ideas in the book, like you do with source code. I have strong capitalist beliefs, I know about patent law, I know about free-market theory and such, I used to be editorial editor of this campus's conservative newspaper. I agree that people could sell the products of their labor. By now, most net-people have heard these arguments. I do have doubts about the validity of copyrights and patents, and maybe that's where my disagreements lie. It seems to me that ideas can't be protected by government, and that individuals can only protect ideas by improving upon them. I can imagine an alternate theory of software piracy: I have a capital investment in hardware, and I buy the raw material of disks, so why can't I use my investment for my own use? Let's pretend that I wasn't playing Singapore, and selling what I copy, but just backing things up. If I were to buy the arguments flying about the net, a software producer should really have nothing to fear from pirates if his product is a good one. Is this only true if we have nice, strong agreements like the law recently proposed in California? Furthermore, I'd like to hear from more people who will admit to owning pirate software. I was chastised by someone from the net in a private letter for admitting the same, in a recent discussion of dongles. I'd really like to look at this guy's Flip-n-file. I believe all those stats about pirated software, and have met only one person who refuses to accept pirated software. Not that the masses have a corner on truth and morality, of course. Oh, I know, this stuff belongs in net.philosophy. -- John Foust "I used to be disgusted, but now I'm just amused"
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (07/29/85)
> I have this idea floating around in my head that I can't get > rid of. Why can't information be free? > > -- > John Foust I expect there to be a raft of angry flames posted, mostly from people who presently make their living writing software for pay, so I'd like to offer a few words of support. I agree completely. Most of the software I use very day is Freeware or Public Domain. Andrew Flugelman is gone (R.I.P.) but his ideas are very much alive: try out my program, send me (a modest amount of) money if you decide to use it a lot. I don't use PC-TALK but I recommend it to anyone who needs it; I use Kermit. One of the best editors I've encountered is the "shareware" product PC-Write. One of the nicest things about it is that I can give copies to my friends, and suggest they try it. A local firm who had purchased the Samna editor for lotsa $ gave it the boot as soon as they saw PC-Write in operation. I've "registered" my copy and expect they will, too. I, too, would like to have a good, fast Freeware C compiler. Anybody making one? -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (07/30/85)
> > I have this idea floating around in my head that I can't get > rid of. Why can't information be free? > > I see the present system of software marketing as fading into > the background, and that sooner or later, most computer software will > be public domain or freeware. Tell me this, if all software if public domain, who is going to sink 50 to 100 man-years developing the next generation of great software? (The 50-100 man-year figure is only for development, there needs to be an equal amount of time put in for QA and documentation...) -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (07/30/85)
In article <443@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >> I have this idea floating around in my head that I can't get >> rid of. Why can't information be free? >> >> -- >> John Foust > >I expect there to be a raft of angry flames posted, mostly from people who >presently make their living writing software for pay, so I'd like to offer >a few words of support. I agree completely. > >I, too, would like to have a good, fast Freeware C compiler. Anybody making >one? > >-- >Ed Nather >Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin >{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather >nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA Sure, everyone would like a good, fast free C compiler. So would I. Why don't you guys get together and write one for me? When you have the answer, you'll know why your dream of free software for everyone will never come to pass. Brint
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (07/30/85)
> I have this idea floating around in my head that I can't get > rid of. Why can't information be free? > -- > John Foust > ... I agree completely. > > Most of the software I use very day is Freeware or Public Domain. Andrew > Flugelman is gone (R.I.P.) but his ideas are very much alive: try out my > program, send me (a modest amount of) money if you decide to use it a lot. > -- > Ed Nather I use a great deal of free and Freeware stuff myself, and I have written a free communications package widely used in the local area. I've nothing against free software, but... We all tend to assume that everyone else wants to do what we do (a sort of Dark Side of the Golden Rule, I suppose). The fact is that a great deal of software is NOT going to get written for free. Would you write a public domain inventory control system? An accounting system (I mean a REAL accounting system)? We're yet to see a good, free spreadsheet on micros (I mean anything even remotely approaching Lotus 1-2-3). I suspect that for something to be written for free (or freeware) it must be perceived as easy, intellectually interesting, or both. In a few cases someone may develop some software for his or her own use and then release it to the public. In general, though, you'll grow old waiting for "free" versions of boring but necessary or very difficult software. I've nothing whatsoever against writing or using free software. But I would also like to see the protection of the rights of those who do want to be paid for their work. An aside: It's interesting that John notes in his article that he has only run into one person who refused to accept pirated software; what does that say about why publishers find it desirable to slow down theft with copy protection schemes? -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (07/31/85)
Let us not forget that even "freeware" (I prefer the name "shareware") will not continue to exist unless YOU register (and pay the nominal fee.) This way the essential person, the creator of the software, will be compensated, and continue to be motivated to support the software. This is completely within traditional capitalistic reasoning, and the only losers would be the dispensible marketing organizations. --henry schaffer
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/01/85)
Originally... > > I have this idea floating around in my head that I can't get > > rid of. Why can't information be free? > > > > I see the present system of software marketing as fading into > > the background, and that sooner or later, most computer software will > > be public domain or freeware. Mr Lerner Comments... > Tell me this, if all software if public domain, who is going to > sink 50 to 100 man-years developing the next generation of great > software? (The 50-100 man-year figure is only for development, there > needs to be an equal amount of time put in for QA and documentation...) Certainly there's no free information, for the same reasons that there's no free lunch. However, the orignal poster offered some interesting ideas for (in effect) deriving sufficient income from information to make its generation (at some level of sophistication) economically feasible. See the latest Byte for J. Pournelle's comments on some stuff TI has done--in particular he asks if TI wants to price its stuff so high ($15000 up front) that only a few people buy it or wouldn't they really like to make it cheap enough so that everybody can try it. It is more than the principle of elastic demand. The theory here is that if more software developers use this tool from TI in their products, the more chances that there will be another 1-2-3. Hence, more money for everybody. [Disclaimer--I am not speaking on behalf of the Burroughs Corporation and I do not price their products] -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath) (08/01/85)
No flame, just a few exercises in reductio ad absurdum. One: OK, henceforth all software is free. However, society will have to provide the physical necessities to those who create it, or they will starve. The logical conclusion is to abandon the capitalism you claim to support in favor of a socialism that will supply those needs. Indeed, the excellent freeware and good ideas you cite were in each case either developed at tax-supported universities or third-partied to AT&T's rate payers, and the second source dried up to a trickle when the Bell System broke up. Two: You'd like a PD C compiler? I don't understand. You know what a C compiler does; you can read about how it does it in your books; and you wouldn't want one unless you could use one, so you must know how to program. So when will you have it ready, and where do I send by SASE? Three: This is the empirical argument, from the market economy you claim to support. There are an arbitrarily large number of potential programs out there in idea-space waiting to be coded. For my welfare check (see argument one) I can code any of them. But someone who HAS money to spend may knock on my door and offer me an order of magnitude MORE money to code the one SHE wants. Shucks, I can write UltraRogue on the Riviera after I write her application...oh, she WANTS me to write UltraRogue...! The conclusion of all these arguments is the same: freeware is written only by the beneficiaries of a tax on the general population. That statement is not intended to in any way demean those who work for Universities, or who accept money collected from the general public. It has long been recognized that basic research, like clean air and national defense, is not well- supported by a pure market economy. I see no evidence that software is such a commodity. I will happily pay for the software that I need, especially in preference to paying taxes to the Ministry of Software to develop things I can get for "free." =Ned=
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/01/85)
> ...the Gnu Manifesto. Whatever weird amalgam of altruism > and socialism Richard Stallman (?) smokes, I bet he'll succeed in > public domain Unix. He may well succeed in producing a public-domain operating system. It isn't likely to look much like Unix, since he's got a long, long list of "improvements" he wants to make. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
sienkiew@udel-louie.arpa (08/02/85)
The way I see it, the fundamental problem is that programmers need to eat (and have other expensive habits). Things like Kermit are great, but somewhere somebody was paying to feed & house the authors. In some cases, this means student loans & scholarships, or somebody was paying
cg@myriasb.UUCP (Chris Gray) (08/06/85)
The basic problem with the notion of free software for the masses is that the lack of remuneration will result in a sharp decrease in the amount of quality software available. Is this desireable? Consider the following hypothetical example: Whizz programmer Joe buys himself a micro and learns all about it. He works for a big outfit that uses computers a lot, so he has, over the years, gained a lot of experience in programming. In his spare time he writes some good software for his micro. He can't spend too much time at it, though, since he spends his days programming at work. He gets paid fairly well and has saved up a nestegg. He decides to quit and go it alone as a software developer for micros. He can then dedicate his full attention and time (and his vast experience) towards creating GOOD software for micros. If he cannot get adequate remuneration for his efforts (assuming what he does is really of value, and he hasn't just been goofing off reading news), he will have to get another job to support himself, thus resulting in less time for work on micro software. He thus may not be able to complete the great programs he has been working on, nor will he be able to put in all of the various improvements and optimizations he has thought of. Basically, writing good software is a full-time job for experienced professionals. If proper payment for such software is not forthcoming, then the software will simply not be produced. I don't think we want to leave the support of programming upto the government, so it has to be private enterprise. Perhaps I'm a bit of a snob-programmer, but I firmly believe that 99.9% of the good software out there has been produced by or reworked by professionals. People talk about the "vast quantities of high-quality public-domain software". There are a few examples I've heard of, but I've also SEEN vast quantities of junk. Also, we must distinguish between public-domain software and "shareware" (or whatever) where happy users are requested to send a contribution. The latter is simply commercialism under a different name, and I think it has excellent possibilities. Chris Gray (ihnp4!alberta!myrias!cg)
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (08/08/85)
In article <419@gumby.UUCP> foust@gumby.UUCP writes: > Public domain software is getting better and better. Often, >it comes with print-it-yourself documentation and source code. The >two PC programs I use most were free, (Kermit and CED) and they came >with long, well-written manuals. Most of the utilities I use are >public domain, too. Remember how all the old CP/M utilities migrated >to PC-DOS? Why won't this keep happening? I hate to throw water on the fire, but I've read a couple of reports that many people are re-thinking the shareware/freeware concept in the Macintosh market because of rather flagrant abuses. Apple is reportedly rather upset with the way some of the early Beta test stuff they were passing around to have tested (early versions of the disk based Macwrite, for example, and an interim version of the Imagewriter printer driver) without permission, and I read a report somewhere (Macworld? I'll have to look for my reference) that a number of shareware people are reconsidering because of the low response rate and problems with people taking shareware and removing or modifying the shareware notices. It just goes to show -- when something gets popular, people start abusing it. If you aren't careful, it gets abused into oblivion... -- :From the carousel of the autumn carnival: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Your fifteen minutes are up. Please step aside!
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (08/09/85)
In article 3093@nsc.UUCP Chuq Von Rospach (nsc!chuqui@decwrl) writes: > I hate to throw water on the fire, but I've read a couple of reports that > many people are re-thinking the shareware/freeware concept in the Macintosh > market because of rather flagrant abuses. Apple is reportedly rather upset > ... > It just goes to show -- when something gets popular, people start abusing > it. If you aren't careful, it gets abused into oblivion... Duke University's User Services Group has passed out many, many copies of PC-Write in our short courses introducing the IBM PC. We always urge people to register their copies, emphasizing the high quality, low cost, updates, etc. To my knowledge only one or two of the hundreds of copies have been registered. It's a wonder Bob Wallace keeps improving it! Maybe he makes it selling the manuals (a cheaper option than registraction). How many of you have actually paid for shareware you use? -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (08/11/85)
> In article 3093@nsc.UUCP Chuq Von Rospach (nsc!chuqui@decwrl) writes: > > I hate to throw water on the fire, but I've read a couple of reports that > > many people are re-thinking the shareware/freeware concept in the Macintosh > > market because of rather flagrant abuses. Apple is reportedly rather upset > > ... > > It just goes to show -- when something gets popular, people start abusing > > it. If you aren't careful, it gets abused into oblivion... > > Duke University's User Services Group has passed out many, many copies > of PC-Write in our short courses introducing the IBM PC. We always urge > people to register their copies, emphasizing the high quality, low cost, > updates, etc. To my knowledge only one or two of the hundreds of copies > have been registered. It's a wonder Bob Wallace keeps improving it! > Maybe he makes it selling the manuals (a cheaper option than > registraction). How many of you have actually paid for shareware you > use? > -- > D Gary Grady My PC-Write registration number is #826, but the total is well over 2000 according to Wallace's last newsletter. I've received two "commissions" from him, for people who registered the editor with my number on it, so I have $50 back on a $75 investment so far, and I use the editor every day. I recommend it every day, too. He's not getting yacht money like Mitch Kapor is, but he's making good wages and seems happy in his work. In a recent article about the death of Andrew Flugelman, whose PC-TALK III is the best-known Freeware product, the author stated that 2 full-time people are still needed just to open mail with checks in for the program. I suggest the rumors of the death of "Shareware" are exaggerated. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (08/12/85)
>registraction). How many of you have actually paid for shareware you >use? I paid for my copy of Diversi-DOS for my Apple II. It's a good deal, because they send me notices about bug fixes and updates to the package, as well related packages they have developed. Joel
toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) (08/14/85)
In article <196@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >How many of you have actually paid for shareware you >use? Well, I have paid for PC-WRITE and F83 Forth (the latter is $25 from the authors but is not strictly share-ware because there is no appeal for money from people who got copies from friends/bboards). I am not using any other software for which donations have been solicited, so I guess I am paying for 100%. Under CP/M I am using lots of public domain software, but nobody every asked for contributions back then.