[Discuss] Why use Linux?

[greg at freephile.com (Greg Rundlett (freephile))]

I agree with Martin.

"Copyright" as used in production of proprietary software is a legal
mechanism for mass production of a fiat currency with little or no
intrinsic value.  The copyright holder then has a way to print money.
 "Copyleft" was designed to use our legal system to prevent accumulation of
that economic power and instead treat software as "knowledge".  It's easy
to argue that knowledge freely shared has a much more positive benefit than
hoarding.  No matter how hard and expensive it is to produce the next great
software improvement, it is best done openly.  Copyleft does level the
playing field and is the embodiment of sharing.  A lot of people don't like
a level playing field and don't like sharing, despite what they learned in
kindergarten.

Assertion: All software can't be free.  Response: Why not?  Please provide
an example.  In the proprietary v. public debate,  I can remember one
example: tax software as supposedly a thing that could not be done by the
'hobbyist'.  But that argument ignores the fact that the tax collector (the
government) has a very natural interest in producing such software.  They
could easily produce GPL tax filing software.  They don't because H&R Block
doesn't want user freedom, but rather protection of their "proprietary"
Intellectual Property rights.

Q. How do you make money when the software is free?  A. How do lawyers get
paid so much when laws are "free"?  I run a business that gets paid for
REAL work recommending, installing, customizing free software to fit a
particular need and training people how to use it.  Part of my time
invariably ends up adding to the body of knowledge that is free software
(like fixing bugs, adding new features, writing new software etc.).