I can understand the point Tyler is making which may have no direct bearing on what I am about to present as my opinion regardless of what is behind the curtain or inner working as you might say.
A Obligation
I think that if I use some software that is free then I have a obligation to help the organization that covers this software by:
- Promoting the software.
- Filing bug reports.
- Testing the software.
I feel that the current version I am using should always be free for my to use and that before a version becomes commercial as many bugs in my current version should be fixed as to bring the software to a functional state equal to or above a average that would be determined using some standard method.
I can also consider my obligation a payment for usage of the software, and that is possible because I have more time for a obligation than the average yearly amount of money I posses.
Special Treatment
I do not think the organization deserves any special treatment. I do think that people should fulfill their obligation if they have one. The obligation should not include:
- Misrepresenting the software with functionality, stability, or usability that does not exist.
- Making hype about the software is beyond a normal excitement for it.
- Breaking communication rules for a medium of communication in order to fulfill the obligation.
- And anything included under Murphy's Law.
As most certainly the:
Breaking communication rules for a medium of communication in order to fulfill the obligation.
Or any thing similar which I would definitely consider special treatment. This should class the non-profit organization with a commercial organization in terms of rule breaking.
So if you consider this obligation special treatment then you are welcome to hold that opinion, but I feel it does not hold true since instead of being special treatment I am simply converting my time into money for them.
Interpretation Of Tyler's Argument
I actually do understand what you mean in that the organization should not be given special rule breaking powers or the severance of honesty to make the software look better than it really is just to compete with a commercial equivalent software. And, if my understanding is correct then I agree with what you are saying.
I would imagine that a non-profit and profit organization should both remain on the same level at the playing field and only one factor should be different which is the type of obligations.
- Pay me with time.
- Pay me with currency.
As far as the tax rules go for non-profit and profit organizations I have no actually idea since I know very little about these things. I would imagine that there are loop holes in a system such as this which people could manage to exploit - and with that being said this alone might be a good reason to further clamp down on holding some non-profit organizations to the same playing field as profit organizations.
You can blame it on dishonest people frankly.
And yes I do agree that the words used to describe a company or products such as:
- non-profit
- donation
- charity
Can become quite misleading when used in the appropriate situation.
It can become so serve as to be fit with a example of:
You retain information from someone in order to lead them to help you make gains unknowingly which creates a misleading conception of you from them.
Such that A:
Produces Z and C cost where H is in time and J is in money with reason R.
Such that B:
Produces Z and M cost where V is in time and O is in money with reason L.
Such that both A and B produce Z or something that falls with in a threshold that allows it to be considered the same.
Where H, J, V, and O are directly from the consumer while
((C>=(H+J)) && (M>=(V+O))) due to other sources in income which are influenced by R and L for each A and B respectively which will later become a point point of this explanation.
A has zero J and all H, while B has all O and zero V. However:
Where reason R also directly becomes a allocation for resources:
[LR].A = We are doing this to pay for our research, employment, and ect.
L.B = We are doing this for free.
The problem is (H+J) = (V+O) yet (R!=L) which makes no sense. Where is the resource allocation on L.B going? It is going somewhere. The reason it is a type of resource allocation is because it influences people's decisions on which company to choose not based on what they have to offer but simply by misleading them (intentionally or not?).
This is not a matter of profit or non-profit, however once you include the profit and non-profit into the mix you add another factor that influences people's decisions but if no one is
over-paid and the resources gained from the influence factor of non-profit and L.B are truly converted into [LR].A which the remaining placed into Z then I would have no problem.
It actually should not matter if: C and M are equal for A and B. That is beyond the point but it does worsen the problem if (C > M) because L.B are NOT truly converted into [LR].A with the remaining placed into Z.
I think this is what Tyler is saying if my interpretation is correct.
