Re: [Fsuk-manchester] "Selling" Free software to the masses

[Simon Ward]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:09:29PM +0000, Iain Roberts wrote:
> Having spent a good chunk of the last few year promoting free & open
> source, and working with other doing the same, I'm afraid I'm not too
> optimistic about the ability of the four freedoms and the philsophy
> behind free software to appeal to a wider audience.

All the more reason to find ways to show that the freedoms should
appeal.  Without them, free software is nothing.  This is why Manchester
Free Software exists, and not to promote “open source” or just gain
popularity of software by just using its often zero monetary cost to
appeal to people.  We are promoting the ideology, as difficult as the
task is, not the software just because it happens to be free software.

> The 4 freedoms mean little to modern, non-technical users.  They don't
> want to know how the software works, or change it.  If they want to
> share any software with someone else, they'll give them the URL or
> torrent to download it.  And, in practise, they can normally do what
> they want with proprietary software.

Usually illegally, sometimes not but still outside licence terms, but
nobody reads the licences anyway.  Nobody is caught in practise, and
many big software vendors don’t care[*], but that’s not the point.  With
free software you can do all of this without the lock-in, and without
the possibility of the law enforcement on your back[**].

Thanks for pointing this out though.  Some free software advocates seem
not to understand that people don’t even know what the freedoms are good
for and what they are and are not supposed to be able to do with
proprietary software.

[*] They might shout about “piracy” occasionally, but they know deep
down that these users probably would not have bought their software
anyway, because they could not afford it or because it does not meet
their requirements.  If/when at some point they do decide to “go legit”,
it is likely they’ll purchase the software they’re used to using.

[**] Notwithstanding the ability of law enforcement to understand that
you can freely copy and distribute free software.

> Mark make an interesting point about DRM and other restrictions.  To
> some extent that's true but - in practise - most people find the
> opposite: there are far more things that they want to do but can't in
> *free* software because it doesn't have the functionality.

I would focus on what they can do in free software.  I don’t think
comparing piece by piece of free software to piece by piece of
proprietary software is the way to go.

> I defy anyone who's used the latest versions of MS Office to seriously
> claim that OpenOffice.org is as good (though it may be good enough for
> their needs, as it is for mine).  Likewise, free software for editing
> movies and doing DTP is clearly and often painfully inferior to the
> better proprietary alternatives.

I remember an article some time back that talked about how much of the
functionality of Microsoft Word (or Excel, or maybe Office) people
actually used.  It tended to only be basic functionality.

The same article later went on to say that when introducing people to
similar free software that didn’t have all of the functionality.  They
tended to be able to get on fine with it, but some lamented at the lack
of the functonalities that they didn’t use.  Can’t win :)

I’ve been unable to dig up said article.

FWIW, I think OO.o is an unwieldy piece of software at the best of
times.

> And isn't so much of this software running on our PCs so old-fashioned
> anyway, when so many apps are web based (and free as in beer)?

That’s still software, albeit further distanced from the user.

You still need software to run the web-based software.

> To promote free software, I would concentrate on the free apps that
> genuinely offer something either better than the proprietary
> alternatives (e.g. Firefox)

+1  These are the applications that people are likely to have heard
something about.  Go on, push them, give them the impetus to give this
software a try, and while you’re at it, don’t forget to mention one of
the reasons this software is so good: free software.

> or that you couldn't legally improve without paying a significant
> amount of money (e.g. Gimp, Inkscape).

Again, go for it.  Although, I have reservations about trying to
generally promote niche products (e.g. The Gimp, Inkscape) 

> They're (relatively) widely used, look good, have lots of handy
> plug-ins, big user support communities and do the job well enough for
> most people's needs.  And, of course, they can be legally obtained
> free of charge.

Cost can be mentioned, but should not be emphasised when promoting free
software, whatever the audience.  Cost tends to be zero, but is
irrelevant to free software itself.

Remember, we’re not just promoting software that happens to be free
software, we’re promoting free software.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature