Pt. 2:
I completely disagree with point no. 2 and mainly because it is based on assumption that my basics about GPL are not clear. But with this statement I can safely assume that the comment is written without reading (or at least without understanding) the complete post and other previous comments.

Pts. 3,4,5,6:
I agree that companies providing free software are making lots of money. What I am talking about is “ME” and not some big company! Take my example of a feature-rich PIM made by a small company. If the software is released under GPL how will that person make enough money?

And even when it concerns big companies, there are problems! Just imagine what can happen to RedHat with Oracle providing support for RH Linux!! How could Oracle hit under the belt? Simply because RH’s source code is open!

@mehul
Thanks for those links. I shall read thru as soon as I get some free time.

Here’s what he wrote:
I would like to point a few core issues with it

1) You don’t HAVE to release your source code. If you are not using any of the GPL’d or free programs/resources in writing your program then you can release it under no matter what license you want; OTOH if you are using something for free (like GCC) while producing your bread and butter then it becomes ethical (and sometimes legally binding) to give something back to the community.

2) Major problem with people’s perception regarding Open Source is that you don’t charge for your work and keep it free-of-cost. The author is one of the members of that thought society which is entirely wrong.

3) Companies like Cedega keep their source code open for every one while providing compiled binaries at a cost. This keeps their business model intact while giving their software an open source advantage. They get many developers working on their code for free.

4) Qt releases its work under dual license where if their toolkit is used in commercial applications, the developer needs to pay.

5) Mozilla Corporation, raised revenues in order of $52.9 million in 2005 and their CIO Mitchell Baker drew a pay check of $120K for the year. Comparatively Opera, a popular closed source alternative generated 57.9 million Norwegian kroner or $9.65 million. Opera’s total earnings include the revenue from its mobile segment.

6) Their are numerous companies like RedHat and Novell who keep their source codes open (Source RPMs?) while earning more than enough money to “feed their families”.

Hope the reply helps! And please dont ask ME to justify these points :p If you wish to debate with him, please contact him via PM on thinkdigit.

Of course I can sell my software after releasing it under GNU/GPL. But tell me one thing. How many copies of GNU/Linux or OpenOffice have you bought and how many have you just copied?

Take the example of a small programmer. He makes a small but very useful yet easy to use software and sells it’s first copy. The user likes it very much and recommends it to his 10 friends who in turn recommend it to 100 people.

If the software is released under GNU/GPL, all that the programmer would have is revenue from selling only 1 copy even if 111 people find it really useful! If it is not under GNU/GPL, he could have made some decent money for his efforts prompting him to work harder and make another good software! Love for coding doesn’t help you survive! You need money for it!

Of-course people can compile it from source code and use it. But how many people compile and use softwares?

Last thing which I want to say here is, “Love it or Hate it, but you just can’t ignore it.”

Bye

The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds.

-Richard Stallman on Pg 58

Then there is one more:

The Free Software Foundaton (FSF), a tax-exempt charity for free software development, raises funds by selling GNU CD-ROMs, T-shirts, maunals and deluxe distributions, (all of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from donations.

-Richard Stallman on Pgs 58, 59

Do you want to beg for donations and earn by selling T-shirts even after putting in so much effort in writing code? If that is what you have to ultimately do to earn your livelihood then it clearly shows that Freedomware fails miserably on economic front and that is the main topic of discussion here!

I am sure “small developers” doesn’t want to remain so all there life, and what would be the better way to improve skill than to work on world class softwares and move on to next level?

Robert Love author of “Linux Kernel Development” and maintainer of preemptive Linux kernel had shown his kills by working on the Linux Kernel and now he is “Chief Architect, Linux Desktop, at Novell”.

And come on, do you really think that everybody in the world has just one ambition in their life “to become millionaire”?

Heard about “Fame”, “Self Satisfaction on doing what you love to rather than what your manager love to”?

GPL fails miserably on the economic front especially for small developers, whether they develop custom software or general purpose one.

Please read thru the entire discussion to know what all has been discussed.

We all know how people can make money by getting employed with big guns. But what about small entrepreneurs? I want to be my own boss. I want to know how I can earn enough by releasing my softwares under GNU/GPL. Any clues?

By the way, RedHat and others are making millions from GNU/Linux. What does Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and other programmers get from that? Shouldn’t they be getting something for their efforts?

This is how Red hat sells RHEL, and they do make money!!!

I read thru your reasons for following GPL. I have read all these many times earlier. All these reasons are good only from the other side of the fence (i.e. as a user). I say GPL is great for all those who use a GPLed software. But what about the programmer who originally wrote the code? Is he suppose to work only for progress of science, society, technology, knowledge, freedom, etc.?? What happens to HIM? How does he earn his daily bread (and cake too)?

In my hunble opinion, GPL fails miserably on the economic front especially for small developers, whether they develop custom software or general purpose one. So far I have not found a single convincing argument from anywhere.

But freedom as both end-user and developer is good because as developers and fellow peers we can look at each others source code, learn from it. Re-usable code leads to good software made at half or quarter of the time bound.

Thats the way science works, thats the way knowledge passes from one source to another. As a end-user, the benifits are software can optimised for the given machine and built for that particular machine.

Again you can see, iam just speaking technically. Iam not that sure if ill speak correctly in a economic point of view and its immature to post my views here at this point.

But until a better economic startegy comes, there is no harm in following current. But as you know, actually most Free Software developers are Sponsored and Employed by MNC’s such as Red Hat.

Developers can charge for creating custom, task specified software for companies and corporations but general user softwares must be free.

These are just my views. They may be wrong. But to my heart i feel they are correct. Iam not speaking in a economic stand point.

But, now his replies have shifted from economics to ethics! Ethics is completely subjective. What I find ethical, someone else finds unethical and vice-versa. IMO, compelling someone to reveal the source code and then making free use of it to earn money is unethical because the original programmer is not paid enough for his efforts!!

Anyway, lets discuss everything else later. Please tell him to show me how I can earn enough money from GPLed software! I am seriously not interested in selling t-shirts or beg for donations!!

PS:
Additionally, as for comments about my conscience, when someone has no other convincing argument left, he starts with personal comments!! I think he must be having a lot more to say. I wonder why he wrote this!

Well, this is his reply.

Ashish wrote:

He says we should live with less money! Why should we??

Stallman’s reply:

It is an ethical responsibility to treat other people ethically.

People have all sorts of motives for wanting more money. And making money is not bad in itself. But that desire does not justify mistreating or subjugating others, and non-free software is an instance of that.

Ashish wrote:

I am not doing anything illegal!

Stallman’s reply:

What a person changes the subject from ethics to law, that means he has shut off his conscience.

The rest of his message is rationalization. Some of it is based on misunderstandings about how the free software world works. You can clear them up for him, if you want to take the time.

God has given you a brain to think and form your own opinion. Don’t do something simply because someone else is telling you to do it. Think about it, find out all the pros and cons, get your doubts removed and then follow a path.