Ebben igazad van, de ha a szoftver termékek mellett pl. a gépészeti termékek tervei is GNU-s licenszűek lennének, akkor azokat szabadon használva, olcsóbbak lehetnének az ezekkel előállított termékek is.Másrészt Stallman is ezt mondja, amit kb. te mondasz:
Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
waste -- practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the
owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to
be able to use it, some people are going to say, "Never mind, I'll do
without it." And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the
interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't
mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you
can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be
allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that
having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from
diverting lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really
needed. But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be
doing any good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical
objects, of course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to
make an additional one of them, each additional exemplar.
But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And
it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of
electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to
allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the
software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of
economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and
trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the
premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the
conclusions and assume that they're valid for software too, when the
argument is based on nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't
work in that case. It is very important to examine how you reach the
conclusion, and what premises it depends on, to see where it might be
valid. So, thats Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.
