Price is irrelevant. The question was about Free software, not freeware.
People can make money with open source, and clearly there are projects that don't have funding that still get made. The incentive to develop is there, whether there is a profit motive or not.
Stallman is not insisting that all software be available at no cost. He wants to ensure that software doesn't unnecessarily restrict what he considers to be important freedoms.
Not everyone agrees that those freedoms are important, however. Most people don't know much about the technical issues with computers, let alone the social/political issues.
To illustrate, I remember working at a help desk when one of those worms struck what seemed like very Windows machine in the world at once. I got a call in which I had to explain that the problem was with an RPC vulnerability and not anything that the person downloaded or installed. This person became upset and then calmed herself down by saying, "Well, what can you do? It isn't like I can use anything else. We're pretty much stuck with it, huh?"
I replied, "Well, I use Linux." B-)
It's funny when people look at the Free Software Foundation and think, "Communists!" because it seems to me that the FSF and Free Software actually level the playing field, allowing a more competitive, capitalist market, as opposed to giving a monopoly to a single entity. Capitalists believe that competition is good, but I recall that a number of the big proprietary software companies actually tried to make it harder for Free and Open Source software to compete in the market. What does that say about what economic model those companies would prefer? B-)
|