In essence, it is the only question about Linux going through my mind these days. I've read some articles about the topic these days too. And yes, I love and I'm using Debian and there's no doubt in me that there should be totally free operating system, just like Debian is, but do we, Linux users, need, as an option availabe to us, non-free software provided by those who, simply put, just want to earn money from their work?

Would this be good for Linux and its users?

In one article that I've been reading, author said that many developers would write new code for Linux if they knew that there is an interest. He said that if so, coders would be motivated to write new code for Linux.

I'll tell you something, I'm in love with photography and I know there's GIMP if I want to manipulate my images, but recently I've been looking for software that could help me to be even more productive maybe with my photography. I've searched and I found Bibble (http://bibblelabs.com/). You know what, it is available for Linux too, as a trial version. But what was the reason they made it available for Linux, it's because people requested so. Why they did? Because it's a wonderful software.

What about games? The most popular games people play in Winblows? Why can't we play them on Linux? Are you telling me because people are not interested? You're wrong if that's what you think. There must be better demand for things like that to happen. There must be better awereness and a better way to express your demand. Btw, one game that I liked to play was America's Army, but few years ago they stoped coding it for Linux and what I know people have problems now playing it.

Ubuntu has, how much? Four, five pay for software packages in the Software Center and it's the only one which has as far as I know. Why not more?

Will all those gamers, photographs, musicians etc. really and totally switch to Linux if some things will not change? We as a community IMO should work on that because I don't have anything against good and software worth paying a few bucks if it's made out of hard work, simply because that's how the world we live in works these days for many. Until there's a better world where every piece of software will be open source, I understand some people and companies.

I'm going to pay for Bibble.

I just think somewhere there are developers who would code for you, but they don't know about you.

I don't have problems with non-free software on Linux, I am using it day to day (Flash, graphics drivers, Windows games on Wine, ...). I would appreciate if the developers would release commercial Linux games, there was some effort for that in the last time from the independent game developers field, and it was a success, AFAIK.

Linux is free and open to all, so I don't think that non-free software will harm, as long as there are free counterparts. It would be a shame if Gimp would be abandoned because Adobe decides to release Photoshop for Linux.

Of course. I do not think Linux is about free-loading, but about free-dom of choice. It starts with the distro. What distro suits your needs/expectations? Does it have to be an all-round-think-with-you like Ubuntu, or a DIY like Linux from Scratch? Are you comfortable enough to tinker with it? Lite w8? Server only? Then there is the choice of desktop (I'm there now) for your system. Gnome? KDE? XFCE? LXDE? Enlighten? To compile or not to compile, that's (yet an other) question (to quote the famous Bard).

And, yes, you have the freedom of choice to even pay for the software.

Linux is not for freeloaders, but for free spirits!

By the way...thanks for starting this thread

Thor

2 members found this post helpful.

Tobi, GIMP will never be abandoned... ...simply because it's open source and people love it, I love it.

Yes, there have been an effort from the independent game developers, and AFAIK they still working, but these things need to be promoted better in our community.

[EDIT]
Thor, you're the man! ^

If they want to earn money off of it, they should do something different. For example:

Do what Red Hat does and have them pay for support.

Release the source code after you've made your money.

For games, release the engine source code, but have them pay for the artwork and game scripts.

I don't like closed source software, mostly because I don't trust it. Who knows what they might include in there, keyloggers, backdoors, phoning home with your data. If two softwares were available with similar capabilities, I would always go for the open source one, even if it isn't quite as good. I hope one day nouveau will be able to replace nvidia, even if at somewhat lower performance.

1 members found this post helpful.

The problem with that is that many game developers nowadays use third party engines which they can't release as open source.

Yes, that is a problem, so this isn't always a solution.

Yes, I understand you and I would always go for the open source one, but sometimes, in my case with Bibble, there can people who want to try something new, even if they must pay for it, so what I'm saying is let those people have an option. I agree, with closed source there can be privacy and security issues but then again I say it's all on the user. I mean, if I want to buy something, I will very well look from whom I might buy it. It's like in Winblows, some will read and learn and then download AVG antivirus for example and others will download something from some phishing site and get a nice little virus. It's about checking the background and reputation.

About what Red Hat does, you have to understand that these days server business is big business, Linux in that field is gaining more and more new users every day, which means they'll need support because they're new to it. For playing games or manipulating images you won't need that kind of support and companies or individuals who are just starting their business if they would release their source code could easily lose potential customers and busienss itself could fail. There's where the fear is. I have no doubt that many of those companies and individuals would contribute back to our community in one way or another if their business would go well.

1 members found this post helpful.

From my experiences on Window$, I don't trust any closed source software. They could all potentially have malware included. Of course, I shouldn't even mention Window$ itself.

Yes, paying for support does not work with games, but why would releasing the source code to the engine cause the business to fail ? I've never understood that. I don't even understand why the nvidia drivers are closed source. Why ? Their usual argument is that the competition could somehow steal that code and use it, but how could they, when the hardware is different ? Besides, if you used one of the creative commons licenses, they could make it non-commercial use only, and if it were share-alike, they would benefit from any changes that the competition might make to the source. Maybe they'll improve the source ...

Simply because others could make a better product or/and offer. It's called "Stealing customers"

And yes, licences are interesting thing, but it's that not many are willing to play with them, as I said, it's fear, but one thing is sure, there should be better communication between everyone involved.

But, the license would require them to release the code ... so no, they wouldn't steal customers.

I meant if that was the other, non-free license.

Well, then the whole problem lies in the licensing I think.

the way i see it is just because you pay for something doesn't make it better then the free alternatives.
Does Linux need more non-free software? IMHO no it doesn't.
Does that mean that more non-free software for Linux is a bad thing necessarily? Not really.
Would I pay for it? Probably Not, but then again I wouldn't pirate it either.
I would say from my experiences that the Linux community is predominantly about sharing and openness, and that my guess would be that most of the open-source purists wouldn't want non-free software, and those who are familiar enough with the open source alternatives would have little incentive to purchase pay software for Linux.

My hypothesis on this question is that a majority of the consumers of non-free Linux software (other than the necessary evil proprietary, but free driver or other proprietary but free software) would be new Linux users, new windows converts in particular, who just came from a mind set of 'if I want/need it, I gotta pay for it'.

just my 2 cents

I consider myself to be a "Gamer", and also a bit of a Linux enthusiast. I have no problems paying for Linux software, especially games, if it's actually a decent product. For example, I'll happily shell out 40 dollars for crossover games, simply because it makes my life a little easier, they support Wine and the community, and they're a very transparent company. I've bought pretty much every Linux compatible game I could, some of which are amazing (Amnesia, I'm looking at you). It is also nice that most of the Linux games are DRM free and cross platform, I like to show support for that sort of thing.