|
| From: | Jim Garrett |
| Subject: | Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Gratis software being released as proprietary |
| Date: | Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:37:23 -0400 |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 |
I can hardly pick a place to start.Let me quickly note that the four reasons you mention are rebutted easily. But telling them that won't help. If you'd like me to offer my specific rebuttals, I can.
I think your colleagues may have some basic misconceptions that you may need to address. One misconception about Free software that I encounter is that the development is uncontrolled, i.e., anyone on the internet can add a change (to the official release). You should make clear that under the GPL, or any license for that matter, copyright holders control the official release. With Free software others are free to fork a package, but not release their own version under the same name.
Similarly, many think Free software doesn't have the quality assurance of proprietary software. It's true that proprietary software companies employ software testors. Of course, there exist Free software companies that do the same. Regardless, the quality of the software depends on the people writing it, whether it's Free or proprietary. Just remind people how bad some proprietary software is, or has been. A QC department is hardly a guarantee of quality. Also, EULA's generally absolve proprietary software companies from any liability accruing from bugs. (You might mention that if they release proprietary software, even gratis, they will have to write a EULA. That alone may suffice!)
It may be that your colleagues think there's a possibility of selling the software down the road. This could be a very seductive idea, and in this case it could be hard to dissuade them from the possibility. However, I think people see the revenue stream, but don't think about how much work it is. How much money and energy would your colleagues plan to devote to add license keys to their software? Would they hire lawyers to chase pirates? How much do they plan to devote to marketing? How do they keep track of how many licenses a given institution has, and whether the site is abusing them? Do they plan to hire staff? Once they do, they'll have to add features quickly and then convince people they need to buy the new version. And on and on. For technical software, the proprietary path is not an easy one.
Also, ask your colleagues what path best ensures the long-term availability and quality of the software. With proprietary software, they will get no help from anyone, they will be on their own, because they are not really sharing. People don't trust freeware (proprietary gratis software). And if your colleagues start charging for their software in the future, they will be even more isolated. Among users, the nuisance of having to manage licenses will be a bigger detriment to adoption than the money itself. Then there will be a high probability of development and maintenance stopping and the software sinking into obscurity. The graveyard of technical proprietary software packages is well-populated.
Moreover, "freeware" combines the worst elements of Free and proprietary business models. With Free software, gaining revenue can be a challenge, but on the other hand Free software development is so efficient that often little money is required, and the community may take some of the burden of maintenance. With proprietary software, for its evils, at least there is an obvious revenue stream (pay for access) to pay for maintenance. Freeware turns away the obvious revenue, *and* the community. How can such software thrive?
These arguments have fallen along the Open Source lines of reasoning (efficiency, convenience), now let's think about freedom itself. If the four freedoms don't speak for themselves, consider that they support community, both in collaboration and in sharing. You might ask your colleagues what community they envision around their software. What kind of energy do they want to create around it? Do they want users to have a stake in it, to be willing to make sacrifices for it? To make donations? To feel a sense of loyalty? To voice a desire for improvements? With the proprietary approach, they are building a power relationship in which the user is passive and subservient. This doesn't invite loyalty. On the contrary, if they make the software Free, they are equalizing the power relationship. Users are partners and potential collaborators. Smart users will realize the software presents possibilities beyond its current feature set. Maybe someone will want to base a web site on it, or link it with the (Free) R statistical package to enable additional analysis.
A related question for your colleagues: what happens if a competing software package arises? Do they want a user community that is loyal, that will contribute to add competitive features? Or do they want to see users blithely drop their package with hardly a second thought?
Finally, for your reference, I wanted to mention another package this reminds me of: WinBUGS, statistical software that carries out Bayesian analysis. When created, it was the only thing of its kind. It was (and remains) freeware. Initially there was a plan to start charging a fee. It used a license key that was given for free, but the plan was to start charging for the key at some future point that never arrived. Eventually its authors gave up on the idea and said that the key was perpetual.
It didn't take long for OpenBUGS to begin, and also JAGS, and so forth, all Free (or close). WinBUGS certainly had (and still has) an impact on the statistics community, so it's not exactly a failure for its intended purpose, but I wonder if its authors now feel that the proprietary route was worth the trouble, since that aspect has come to nothing. It would have been *so much easier* to just put the code on a server. Also, I don't think it's being significantly developed, though I'm not sure. It's sort of a historical blip now. Had it been Free, it would now be dominant in its area.
My apologies for a long, long message. I didn't have time to write a short one....
Good luck! Jim Garrett On 07/30/2015 12:00 PM, libreplanet-discuss-request@libreplanet.org wrote:
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:27:28 +0100
From: Pen-Yuan Hsing <penyuanhsing@gmail.com>
To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: [libreplanet-discuss] Gratis software being released as
proprietary
Message-ID:
<CAAePrtFQLcfncgTkvHnaqDa_tRRUynPhPmR7JwVWWLiKy7AJZw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear Libreplanet,
I believe I am faced with an opportunity to spread the news about Free
Software this coming weekend, and would love to get your suggestions
on how best to proceed.
In a few days, I will be attending an international wildlife
conservation meeting, and a group of conservation scientists are
scheduled to present a new piece of scientific image management and
analyses software specific to certain cases of wildlife surveys and
management. To achieve maximum "benefit" to wildlife conservation,
they have committed to continued support and updates for the software,
and will release it gratis/free of charge. The problem is that the
software will be proprietary!
I have yet to meet these scientists in person (but will this weekend),
but some common "reasons" I've heard for not releasing gratis software
as Free (as in Freedom) is that they (1) "want to make sure all users
get our most up to date and definitive version"; (2) "want to make
sure the software is well maintained/taken care of"; (3) "afraid of
their hard work being 'stolen' or misappropriated"; and (4) "sounds
like too much extra work when our resources are already streched so
thin".
For (4) above, this is especially true for non-profit organisations
since their resources truly are very limited, and they are afraid of
more burden (I know Free Software is actually liberating, I'm just
saying that's what some people are afraid of). For (3), obviously a
Free Software license makes sure that the original developer is fully
attributed. Even then, I wonder what would be some good responses to
(1) through (4)? Also, I don't think "Freedom is paramount, nothing
else matters" is a sufficient catch all response.
Another possible problem is that these scientists might have actually
hired an outside developer to write this software, and maybe in the
hiring contract the developer made the software proprietary? Is this
something that might have happened? If so, would these conservation
scientists be able to change this?
The above (1) to (4) are some responses from them that I can
anticipate, but what are some other common "concerns" about switching
to Free Software that I can prepare for? Speaking of which, I wonder
if it'll be nice to make a list of such frequently asked questions
about Free Software for makers of both gratis and for-sale software?
Perhaps it can go on the Libreplanet of FSF websites somewhere? (sorry
it it exists, I confess I haven't been to those sites in a while) If
the list doesn't exist, how can we work together to compile it?
Regardless of your personal opinion on wildlife conservation, I think
it is safe to say that these people are very well meaning and
sincerely want to do good in this world. They are not greedy/evil
corporations who want to control our lives! The problem is many people
just don't have the digital literacy (I promise I don't mean this in a
condescending way!) to appreciate the issues around software freedom
and why they should care... :( So what is a nice and respectful way to
bring up this problem, and achieve tangible, positive change? This
will be my first time discussing Free Software with someone actively
involved in software development (though I've talked to many general
"end users" about it before), so I'd really appreciate any suggestions
you have. And sorry about the long message!
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |