I said that little by little, people should start patronizing free and open source softwares so that softwares could be more accessible to all, poor and rich people alike. .
FOSS are increasingly gaining popularity worldwide. In contrast to proprietary softwares, all FOSS grant users the right to use, study, change, and improve software design through the availability of the source codes. Programmers can use a particular software with a particular function to fit into a more comprehensive program he or she is designing. The word "free," in this context refers to the freedom to use or modify the source and not to the price of the software. Some FOSS are sold to consumers. However, some software developers release their softwares to the public entirely free of charge. The three softwares I mentioned are examples of the latter.
My friend however was not that supportive of FOSS compared to me. In fairness to her, she clarified that she was not against FOSS per se. What she was against is giving the software away to the public free of charge. She fears that such measures takes away incentives for software developers to continue designing softwares. For her, this is detrimental to the software sciences as a whole. Being a sociology major, she also raised that as direct products of labor, mainly that of programmers, softwares have exchange value based on Marxs theory of value (Parry and Bloch). The exchange value, she said, was obvious, as softwares, be it proprietary or FOSS can be sold in the market. She contends that it was simply unfair and irrational for software developers to put an effort into developing a product with commercial value and simply giving it away for free.
Indeed, Anna raised valid concerns. The quest for profit has indeed fueled many people and corporations to make advances in technology. Years back, kids have been inspired by the media and their parents to imitate "big-time" people like Bill