4 ms·

If only there really was universal expectation of free software. Then we'd really be getting somewhere.

by compactmani 11y ago

jfoster 11y ago
Are you talking about free as in freedom? I think gargravarr meant free as in cost.
- gargravarr 11y ago
  I did. But as discussed elsewhere on this page, libre software has its own set of drawbacks.
bduerst 11y ago
Software will never truly be "free" because someone pays for it to exist. It has upfront fixed costs and variable costs to maintain, which need to be covered by the developers, users, advertisers, or some combination of the three.
- wongarsu 11y ago
  By that definition nothing can be "free" (as in beer), there's always someone paying for it (even if it's just opportunity cost). For any useful definition of the word free there can also be free software.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Yep, also called TANSTaaFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch). Which is the point in context to someone saying "If only there really was universal expectation of free software...". With IP, the costs are hidden and it's easy to fall into the trap of expecting it to be totally free.
    - wongarsu 11y ago
      The problem with TANSTaaFL is that it uses a completely different definition of the word free than normal English. Normally the word free only references the price paid by the consumer, not the cost of production. If I give you a lunch without asking for anything in return, and without inconveniencing you, that's a free lunch for you. Of course somebody paid for it, but that doesn't stop me from giving it to you for free. >Which is the point in context to someone saying "If only there really was universal expectation of free software...". "I get my software for free but be offered the option to donate" is the model that's giving us Dwarf Fortress. It's free (as in beer) software in any useful sense of the word free.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - bduerst 11y ago
        Oh definitely, the "with donations" is also TANSTaaFL since it acknowledges costs. You're just arguing semantics. I don't think they meant "universal expectation of free software with donations only".
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

If only there really was universal expectation of free software. Then we'd really be getting somewhere.

jfoster 11y ago

Are you talking about free as in freedom? I think gargravarr meant free as in cost.

gargravarr 11y ago
I did. But as discussed elsewhere on this page, libre software has its own set of drawbacks.

bduerst 11y ago

Software will never truly be "free" because someone pays for it to exist. It has upfront fixed costs and variable costs to maintain, which need to be covered by the developers, users, advertisers, or some combination of the three.

wongarsu 11y ago
By that definition nothing can be "free" (as in beer), there's always someone paying for it (even if it's just opportunity cost). For any useful definition of the word free there can also be free software.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Yep, also called TANSTaaFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch). Which is the point in context to someone saying "If only there really was universal expectation of free software...". With IP, the costs are hidden and it's easy to fall into the trap of expecting it to be totally free.
  - wongarsu 11y ago
    The problem with TANSTaaFL is that it uses a completely different definition of the word free than normal English. Normally the word free only references the price paid by the consumer, not the cost of production. If I give you a lunch without asking for anything in return, and without inconveniencing you, that's a free lunch for you. Of course somebody paid for it, but that doesn't stop me from giving it to you for free. >Which is the point in context to someone saying "If only there really was universal expectation of free software...". "I get my software for free but be offered the option to donate" is the model that's giving us Dwarf Fortress. It's free (as in beer) software in any useful sense of the word free.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Oh definitely, the "with donations" is also TANSTaaFL since it acknowledges costs. You're just arguing semantics. I don't think they meant "universal expectation of free software with donations only".
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]