Hello, i'm using free software and GNU/Linux for a long time and i think the work from FSF(E) is really important and it's important to have a complete free Operating System too.
But what i don't understand is why should every software be free or why non-free software shouldn't exist? I have read a lot of things, www.gnu.org/philosophy and the german book "Freie Software zwichen Privat- und Gemeineigentum" but i couldn't find a answere of my question. There are a lot of arguments about the advantage of free software but no real arguments why non-free software is always bad. If i understand it, many people argue with the influence of software on our life. But other things has also great influence on our life. For example before email and instant messaging, the phone was (and maybe is today too) the most used way to communicate. But no one has access to the "source code" of this communication and can change it, copy it and so on. Is the phone therefor a bad thing? Basically what i want to say is, maybe software isn't always that important, maybe there are scopes were software is just a tool or just entertainment. Is it really bad if this software is not free? Sure you can argue that's always good to have control over your PC and can change a tool to do the job you want. But i think this is a argument pro free software and not again non-free software. I think free software has many advantages, in the first place for Hacker and "computer-freaks", what i mean is for people who use the computer to create new things and tweak it the way they like it. But today many people uses the computer just as a tool or as a toy. They aren't interested how it works, like they don't want to have the plan for their power drill, TV or phone. They just want to do their job and thats it.
What do you think. Are there situations were the question about the license is not that important? Or is it always important that every software is free, and why do you think it is?
Thanks, Markus