No future in proprietary software (ZDNet)

No future in proprietary software (ZDNet)

I suspect that the problem is that Stallman is an idealist, not a realist.

I agree might even agree that there is no need for proprietary software. If we shut down Microsoft and loot its bank accounts, we could pay for all the free software we need for a century, and *most* of the world would probably be happier. Unfortunately, those that wouldn't be happier are the people who are currently rich, and hence have a lot of influence over deciding what is "needed".

When RMS says we don't need proprietary software, he's thinking in terms of what software does for society and what good society can do and how it can benefit, educate, illuminate, and entertain the world. However, most people don't think that way. They think how they can make money. Who cares if they already have all the money to fund everything that needs to be done for the forseeable future? If they can make more, they want to do it. It's natural. I'm not immune from this myself (although I'm not in the state of having all I need to fund everythign I need to do!). The people at Microsoft, and many other places, depende on proprietary software for their lucrative incomes. Sure, most of them could find a good living in the "free software" world, but they've *got* it made now, so why would they give that up?

I'd point elsewhere. The world does not need pharmaceutical patents. Oh, many will argue against me, but we could fund all the research that we fund right now via avenues other than making pharmaceutical companies rich. And pharmaceutical patents do an awful lot of harm; they inflate drug prices tremendously, which leads to mass deaths in poor countries, and which may eventually cost the government *more* than it would have to pay to fund the research directly once the baby boomer lobby makes a medicare drug benefit a political necessity, etc. I would say that pharmaceutical patents do a lot of harm, and there are other ways to accomplish what good they do. So we don't need them, and indeed, we need not to have them! But.... pharmaceutial companies are rich, and have a lot of power, and indeed bolster everybody's mutual fund and hence the economy. Thus, politically, our leaders need the pharmaceutical companies, and therefore need drug patents, and therefore we're going to have them even though when you look at the world as a whole and the net effect on humnanity, drug patents are terrible things.

Proprietary software is similar. Humanity doesn't need it, or at least so RMS would argue. But some have found it extremely convenient. Thus, for the forseeable future, we will have it-- just as we will have drug patents for the forseeable future.

-Rob