<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.28">
<TITLE>Re: Possibilities for commercial software?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On 1/26/07 10:47 AM, "Dave Crossland" <dave@lab6.com> wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>> Your argument may be 'but every software for the phone really should<BR>
>> be free - people will write it'. However, if someone hasn't come up<BR>
>> with an absolutely free, modifiable mapping software, I should just be<BR>
>> able to get the proprietary, closed version. It should be easier to do<BR>
>> that than to look in the marketplace, conclude 'oh, this doesn't<BR>
>> exist', and not get an OpenMoko phone because of it.<BR>
><BR>
> You are expanding "free" to "free to give up your freedom", which<BR>
> destroys the meaning of "freedom" with something like a Russell<BR>
> paradox.<BR>
<BR>
I'd say you're instead limiting "free" to mean "free according to the<BR>
doctrine of the Free Software Foundation". (Should I only be eating in<BR>
restaurants which will give me copies of their recipes, for the asking, in<BR>
the name of freedom...? It's gonna limit where I can go...)<BR>
<BR>
Why can't a person have the freedom to run proprietary software on _their_<BR>
open phone if they choose to? No one's requiring _you_ to, presumably, if<BR>
you choose not to. Does the general community need folks like you to protect<BR>
us from ourselves? (And you never answered my question about the ethics of<BR>
Photoshop...)<BR>
<BR>
> The amount of applications available for the phone is not the goal;<BR>
> the goal is to have a 100% free software phone.<BR>
<BR>
But that's at a base level, I don't recall any stated goal of "making sure<BR>
that everyone who ever gets their hands on one _keeps_ it that way!" You<BR>
don't feel people should be able to customize their phones other than in<BR>
"approved" ways? (Slavery is Freedom...?)<BR>
<BR>
>> However, if I were trying to live off of<BR>
>> it, it would be very hard to make it free and open source. Even in<BR>
>> areas such as being a waiter where tips are expected and there is a<BR>
>> known steady stream of customers giving tips, tips alone aren't<BR>
>> sufficient.<BR>
><BR>
> You can also charge for specific improvements, and for support, and<BR>
> many people have earned a living from free software in this way.<BR>
<BR>
Is that the only acceptable business model in your view? If someone comes up<BR>
with a legitimately innovative piece of software, you seem to be saying that<BR>
they'd be "unethical" to simply charge folks who are willing to pay the<BR>
asking price binary-only copies of that software.<BR>
<BR>
I still don't see how trying to limit people's choices is "more free" than<BR>
letting them make their own choices.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>