Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

FSFE opposes claim that free software harms consumers

Filed under
OSS

Does no-cost software harm consumers? The FairSearch coalition thinks so, at least when it comes to Google: They say Google engages in predatory pricing when it distributes Android – a Linux-based mobile operating system – without charge. Recently, FSFE (Free Software Foundation Europe) responded in a letter to the European Commission, labeling as "wrong" and "dangerous" FairSearch’s claims, and saying further:

The predatory pricing theory proposed by FairSearch is plainly unsuitable to describe a market where there is no price, and a product that, being Free Software, can literally be taken by anybody and "forked" ... . There is no "below cost" distribution in Free Software, because the price which market participants set ... in these circumstances is precisely zero.

rest here




Also: The litigation business – The Free Software Column

More in Tux Machines

Debian-Based Distribution Updated With KDE 3.5 Forked Desktop

Q4OS 1.2 "Orion" is the new release that is re-based on Debian Jessie, focused on shipping its own desktop utilities and customizations, and designed to run on both old and new hardware. Read more

Atom Shell is now Electron

Atom Shell is now called Electron. You can learn more about Electron and what people are building with it at its new home electron.atom.io. Read more Also: C++ Daddy Bjarne Stroustrup outlines directions for v17

A Fedora 22 beta walk-through

The new Fedora, with its GNOME 3.16 interface, is an interesting, powerful Linux desktop. Read more Also: Web software center for Fedora Red Hat's Cross-Selling and Product Development Will Power Long-Term Growth Red Hat Updates Open Source Developer and Admin Tools

Unix and Personal Computers: Reinterpreting the Origins of Linux

So, to sum up: What Linus Torvalds, along with plenty of other hackers in the 1980s and early 1990s, wanted was a Unix-like operating system that was free to use on the affordable personal computers they owned. Access to source code was not the issue, because that was already available—through platforms such as Minix or, if they really had cash to shell out, by obtaining a source license for AT&T Unix. Therefore, the notion that early Linux programmers were motivated primarily by the ideology that software source code should be open because that is a better way to write it, or because it is simply the right thing to do, is false. Read more Also: Anti-Systemd People