[Consortium] fao Paul White: Letter for publication

[Andreas Kuckartz]

>From the first half of the article one could think that a misunderstanding took
place. The author uses the term "free software updates", but he obviously was
not referring to updates of "free software" but to free "software updates".

But then he writes this: "In fact, there are still those totally illogical
people who think that all software should be free, no matter how much effort has
been put into creating it - but that's an argument for another day! I'm sure
those people wouldn't want to leave their front doors open with a 'Help Yourself
To All My Stuff' sign outside, yet that seems to be exactly what they expect
from software companies."

Calling people "totally illogical" is not simply defensive but insulting. And
this "Editor in Chief" obviously does not even know what he is writing about.
One could (and should) ask what Sound On Sound has to gain by bashing the Free
and Open Source movements.

Cheers,
Andreas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Harris" <S.W.Harris at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <consortium at lists.linuxaudio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Consortium] fao Paul White: Letter for publication


> Daniel, are you referring to this?
> http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul05/articles/leader.htm
>
> If so, I dont think he was talking about Free Software, but peoples
> expectations around support for software they payed for. However, I agree
> he is a little over defensive of the commercial software world.
>
> - Steve
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:30:54AM +0100, Daniel James wrote:
> > Hello Paul,
> >
> > In your July issue editorial, I think you've unintentionally
> > misrepresented the views of free software developers producing audio
> > and music applications for Linux and other platforms. There are
> > people who think software should be free, but they're not demanding
> > that proprietary software houses give away their creations.
> >
> > Instead, they are writing their own software, and giving the source
> > code away - which of course they are perfectly entitled to do. It has
> > practical benefits because software needs active maintenance to
> > remain useful, so the more people who have access to the code, the
> > better.
> >
> > The argument that software and physical property, such as the stuff in
> > your house, are equivalent will always fall on its face. At the end
> > of the day, software is just a bunch of numbers, and what's true for
> > software creators (marginal or zero cost copying) is just as true for
> > software users.
> >
> > Proprietary software companies moan about so-called 'piracy', but in
> > truth they'd rather have an unpaid-for copy of their own software
> > running on your machine than a paid-for copy from their competitor.
> > It's how a particular application becomes a de-facto standard. Every
> > time someone passes a installer CD to their friend, they are
> > participating in viral marketing for that company.
> >
> > Hardware prices have fallen dramatically, but proprietary music
> > software is as expensive as ever. I mean, £1450 for a single copy of
> > Nuendo, with known bugs? I'd resent having to pay for bug fix updates
> > too. Is it any wonder that students and musicians are writing their
> > own software?
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Daniel James
> >
> > 63 School Green Road
> > Freshwater
> > Isle of Wight
> > PO40 9AT
> > _______________________________________________
> > Consortium mailing list
> > Consortium at lists.linuxaudio.org
> > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium
> _______________________________________________
> Consortium mailing list
> Consortium at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium
>