If you are Argentine and you are over 40, you have undoubtedly understood the reference of the title, popularized by a comic program from the 80s. But, as you probably are not, Let me clarify that we are not talking about the reproductive habits of geese.
At the end of the XNUMXth century, in a town on the Argentine coast, a candidate for public office based his campaign on paying for drinks to those attending the local pulpería (tavern). The parishioners accepted the invitation, but did not hesitate to express to the candidate their opinion of his intellectual capacity, nicknamed him "the goose."
When it was time to pay the bill, you could hear in chorus «Putting the goose was »indicating that he should take out his wallet.
Metaphorically, that's what some free and open source software projects are saying to users.
Financing free software Why would you have to pay?
This week, the site creation and distribution of torrents of open source programs Foss Torrents, announced on his Twitter account:
For the same reason that we do not distribute Elementary OS, we will stop distributing Linux Lite.
We do not compete with a 'Pay what you want' model. Their team is working very hard to give you the best possible distribution and they deserve at least one reward for all their effort.
Further down in the same thread, they add
If we created a torrent for Elementary OS or Linux Lite, the people would use it to download and (probably) wouldn't donate to those projects. That would really hurt the projects, and even us in the future.
And, to make your position clear:
We are here to promote free software projects, not to make money behind your back.
However, not everyone agrees when it comes to Linux Lite. On a comment on the blog, the reader calling himself «Jetas» marks a nuance that I find interesting:
Another profiteer who wants to get paid, when the work is done by others. Since it is a distro based on Ubuntu, he just does a facelift and he believes he has the right to charge, just like the elementary os jetas, also based on Ubuntu, I give him a facelift and charge you. I do not see bad that they want to charge for a distro, but not for a distro that the base makes it another one and you only do a facelift. Those of Solus OS for example, could perfectly charge for it, because it is not based on any other, they made it new from scratch and even invented their own desktop, in these cases if I see normal that it is charged for a distro, because it is made from zero and that has a curre that you do not see me. In my opinion, whoever charges for a distro based on Ubuntu, would have to give 80% of the billing that they take to canonical, since it is the only one that has the merit that those distros made by jetas, work.
Tthere is also no shortage of users who refuse to pay for any open source project if there is a way to get it for free.
Of course, there will be no shortage of readers who suggest that with the same argument Canonical should donate part of the proceeds from Ubuntu to the Debian Foundation. In a way it does. As I was pointed out not very kindly in an Ubuntu user / developer exchange mailing list when I suggested it switch to Devuan, most of Canonical's paid developers are volunteer Debian developers.
Beer and free expression
At this point, I notice that I am going to take the license to use free and open source software as synonyms, although, like most readers, I am clear about the difference.
I think it was Jorge Luis Borges who said that William Shakespeare was a much better writer than Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. He gave as an argument that he had had to manage to write his work in a much poorer language.
Much of the confusion among many users (and I suspect their refusal to pay) stems from the fact that in the English language the same word is used for "free" and "free"
To clear up the confusion, the FOSS communities coined two metaphors:
- Free as in a beer: Content that you access for free but you can only consume under the conditions established by the owner. The best known case is the Adobe Reader pdf reader.
- Free as in free speech: You have complete freedom in what you do with the content, except to restrict others from doing the same.
Hello, particularly as an Argentine, it happens to me that almost all projects charge you in cryptocurrencies or by pay pal ... it is not very friendly, let's say, put a common and current CBU from a bank.
I think the problem is us and not the projects.
The only alternative to send funds to Paypal from Argentine banks charges very expensive commissions and, to send to a foreign bank account using IBAN (The CBU of international banks) a lot of bureaucracy is needed.
Whenever I have had occasion I have paid for linux, buying the opensuse distributions with its manual, I understand that all those who think that free software = free do not have a problem with English.
They are those who prefer pirate windows ranting about windows, if you don't want it, don't use it, if they believe that without windows there would be computer science like now, with all its chiaroscuro, they are confused.
I suppose that all those who refuse to pay for it, would also like to work for free, please, if someone decides to make only a wallpaper, and puts a price on it, it is up to me to pay it and use it, or not to use it, the opposite is take advantage of the work of others.
That if with the flag of free software