http://www.neilgunton.com/open_source_myths/
Note: Since the slashdot article I have had quite a lot of feedback, and I just want to thank everyone who took the time to comment privately via email and publicly on slashdot. Here's a funny thing I've noticed before with slashdot: It seems like people who agree with the article tend to give feedback via email, whereas people who disagree do it on the public board. Interesting. Anyway, the main criticism I have seen has been point 3, "All software should be free", people say that I've misunderstood or misrepresented the concept of "free" (free as in beer or free as in speech etc). Sorry if it seems that way, I do think I "get" the difference between the two. The "free" I am referring to here is mainly the aspect which results in the software being available for free (i.e. no money). If that is the case, then very simply (in my opinion and experience) you will have a hard time getting people to pay for it. Companies might pay for support, but I cover that in the article. Just to be clear: I am not disagreeing with the concept of free software, just making an observation on the consequences when something is made available, source and all, without requiring payment. Thanks again for all the comments! The article was intended to provoke discussion, and it seemed to do that. By the way, here is a spanish translation of the article for anyone who is interested.