Back in the 90s in a country that had just changed from communist to democracy, Stallman really looked like a cool guy, a Robin Hood kinda guy. Because you know what - the communist block actually encouraged piracy, and this free software thing was top of the pops. And the idea of free software, how its created, used, etc... is in a way (to me)... very social, perhaps even very communist by its nature.
Then the first photo I saw of Stallman made me wonder if perhaps he is some kind of Rainbow Gathering type of hippie. Well, fair enough - I appreciate the Rainbow Gathering myself, very liberating... but even there people know that free lunch does note exist.
So the general question about free software is who pays for it. Who pays for the development. It seems that unless it is paid for by governments or universities, the math does not add. Then there is this lack of distinction of what is core package, and business application. Certainly some parts of a larger project may be open-sourced, and even made free, but some can not.
So this generalization of "software" and "free" is at best very childish.
Now don't get me wrong, we've all used pirated software around here, and also used free software, shareware, all kinds of it. And now some tens of years later people also are still very confused about how open source differs from free software. And some of the Richard Stallman fans are even more confused, since one of the major open source supporters in recent years is the once-perceived-very-evil Microsoft...
The argument by some commenters here regarding the cloud lock-in is so valid. It is what we are facing as the biggest challenge - that we don't even see or touch the software that run the businesses anymore. Free or not. Is not on our premises.
And least but not last - I'm more interested in having open access to data created with free/open software and standards alike. What good is a government running free software, when its output is closed, not searchable, not accessible by reasonable APIs? I mean - who cares what CSV, DOCX, SHP, PSDs were created with, if they value 100x the software used?
Then the first photo I saw of Stallman made me wonder if perhaps he is some kind of Rainbow Gathering type of hippie. Well, fair enough - I appreciate the Rainbow Gathering myself, very liberating... but even there people know that free lunch does note exist.
So the general question about free software is who pays for it. Who pays for the development. It seems that unless it is paid for by governments or universities, the math does not add. Then there is this lack of distinction of what is core package, and business application. Certainly some parts of a larger project may be open-sourced, and even made free, but some can not.
So this generalization of "software" and "free" is at best very childish.
Now don't get me wrong, we've all used pirated software around here, and also used free software, shareware, all kinds of it. And now some tens of years later people also are still very confused about how open source differs from free software. And some of the Richard Stallman fans are even more confused, since one of the major open source supporters in recent years is the once-perceived-very-evil Microsoft...
The argument by some commenters here regarding the cloud lock-in is so valid. It is what we are facing as the biggest challenge - that we don't even see or touch the software that run the businesses anymore. Free or not. Is not on our premises.
And least but not last - I'm more interested in having open access to data created with free/open software and standards alike. What good is a government running free software, when its output is closed, not searchable, not accessible by reasonable APIs? I mean - who cares what CSV, DOCX, SHP, PSDs were created with, if they value 100x the software used?