5 ms·

>The whole point of the free software movement is to demand freedom for all users. No it isn't. It's to demand the work of others be free for consumption by a

>The whole point of the free software movement is to demand freedom for all users. No it isn't. It's to demand the work of others be free for consumption by anyone without compensation. Users have a choice - free software (there are very few categories of end-user tools that I can think of that aren't well served by open source these days), or commercial software. If the free software movement cared about freedom they would recognize that preserving user choice is a more important and lofty goal than just saying free all the things. A militant approach to demanding that everything be free is an entitlement that doesn't value the disproportionate investment of resources (time, money, energy, etc) that software developers invest in their work in contrast to the value that users extract from that expenditure. Software developers should be free to release software for free if they choose to, and users should have the right to use software that has been released for free (for example, unencumbered by hardware manufacturer restrictions that exist strictly to prevent the end user installing chosen software), but demanding the work of others for free is nonsense.

Karunamon 11y ago
The other guy is being dogmatic, but you're being just plain wrong. It's to demand the work of others be free for consumption by anyone without compensation. This is a monumental misunderstanding of what the FSF and the GPL stand for. (And they have only themselves to thank for muddying the word "free" but that's another rant). Compensation is not something covered by Free Software.
- ygjb-dupe 11y ago
  > Compensation is not something covered by Free Software. That's kind of my point. Free software, per the FSF and the GPL requires that the users are free to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute software. There is no provision there to allow for the authors to extract value from their own investment through distribution of the outputs. If you can't extract value from the distribution of that software, then you are left with building value through the delivery of services, support, monetizing the data you can collect from users, or access to your user (so far the the most prominent open source business models). I have no objection to open source software, and quite enjoy using and contributing on open source stuff (software , documentation, gaming content, etc), but make no mistake, the free software movement demands that the work of others be free for consumption without compensation.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    the free software movement demands that the work of others be free for consumption without compensation You say this one paragraph after you listed a number of ways to get compensation. There are entire corporations, large ones, built around this model you claim doesn't exist. And then there's the fact that the overlap between people likely to buy your software, and people with the skill, time, and desire to build your software from source, is pretty small. A number of app store apps work on this model (off the top of my head, the Textual IRC client is one)
    - ygjb-dupe 11y ago
      Those are in fact compensation, but not compensation for consumption which is a primary concern for any software which depends on novelty of experience, for example, video games. Yes, I know how open source models work to generate revenue and earn money. I was employed by Mozilla for almost 5 years, so I clearly understand how open source companies make money, and it's not by consumption of the software. What they aren't is compensation for consumption. Have you ever wondered why there hasn't been a blockbuster, AAA open source game despite the fact that many other sectors are dominated by open source? It probably has a great deal to do with the fact that entertainment is largely based on deriving value directly from the consumption. There are still ancillary revenue sources (merchandising, movie deals, etc) that can generate alternate revenue streams, but the bottom line, without generating compensation directly from consumption, not from alternate revenue streams, making a game would not be profitable.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        I didn't mean to imply you don't know what you're talking about, so apologies if I came off that way. But this.. entertainment is largely based on deriving value directly from the consumption This sounds like a failure of business model rather than an intractable problem. Okay, a hypothetical: Pretend for a moment that you write an open source game, distributing the source on Github or similar, but you also sell a complete packaged copy for real money on places like Steam and GOG. Do you think that the presence of the source-based copy will impact one iota the sales on the storefronts? Before answering, consider that it takes less skill and less sophistication to download from a torrent site and apply a crack than it does to set up a build environment. I don't think it does. And I think this is a normative assumption (can't sell open source!) about the industry that's been accepted without any real supporting facts.
cyphar 11y ago
> >The whole point of the free software movement is to demand freedom for all users. > No it isn't. It's to demand the work of others be free for consumption by anyone without compensation. Users have a choice - free software (there are very few categories of end-user tools that I can think of that aren't well served by open source these days), or commercial software. SUSE, RedHat and numerous other companies make plenty of money selling free software (and selling support for it). This is is "commercial free software". You don't seem to understand what "free software" refers to. It does not refer to price. It refers to freedom. > If the free software movement cared about freedom they would recognize that preserving user choice is a more important and lofty goal than just saying free all the things. You are redefining the word freedom. Freedom refers to control over your own life. You don't have such control when using proprietary software. The only way to have such control is the 4 fundamental freedoms. Any other definition is just muddying the waters. > A militant approach to demanding that everything be free is an entitlement that doesn't value the disproportionate investment of resources (time, money, energy, etc) that software developers invest in their work in contrast to the value that users extract from that expenditure. Given that Linux and GNU exist, and are being sold and have funding from large companies, I call bullshit. Just because some companies have decided to sell proprietary software doesn't mean that suddenly it isn't possible to sell free software. > Software developers should be free to release software for free if they choose to, and users should have the right to use software that has been released for free (for example, unencumbered by hardware manufacturer restrictions that exist strictly to prevent the end user installing chosen software), but demanding the work of others for free is nonsense. Again, you're not understanding what free software is. It is software which respects your freedom. It does not have to be gratis (without price) in order to respect your freedom.

Karunamon 11y ago

The other guy is being dogmatic, but you're being just plain wrong. It's to demand the work of others be free for consumption by anyone without compensation. This is a monumental misunderstanding of what the FSF and the GPL stand for. (And they have only themselves to thank for muddying the word "free" but that's another rant). Compensation is not something covered by Free Software.

ygjb-dupe 11y ago
> Compensation is not something covered by Free Software. That's kind of my point. Free software, per the FSF and the GPL requires that the users are free to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute software. There is no provision there to allow for the authors to extract value from their own investment through distribution of the outputs. If you can't extract value from the distribution of that software, then you are left with building value through the delivery of services, support, monetizing the data you can collect from users, or access to your user (so far the the most prominent open source business models). I have no objection to open source software, and quite enjoy using and contributing on open source stuff (software , documentation, gaming content, etc), but make no mistake, the free software movement demands that the work of others be free for consumption without compensation.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  the free software movement demands that the work of others be free for consumption without compensation You say this one paragraph after you listed a number of ways to get compensation. There are entire corporations, large ones, built around this model you claim doesn't exist. And then there's the fact that the overlap between people likely to buy your software, and people with the skill, time, and desire to build your software from source, is pretty small. A number of app store apps work on this model (off the top of my head, the Textual IRC client is one)
  - ygjb-dupe 11y ago
    Those are in fact compensation, but not compensation for consumption which is a primary concern for any software which depends on novelty of experience, for example, video games. Yes, I know how open source models work to generate revenue and earn money. I was employed by Mozilla for almost 5 years, so I clearly understand how open source companies make money, and it's not by consumption of the software. What they aren't is compensation for consumption. Have you ever wondered why there hasn't been a blockbuster, AAA open source game despite the fact that many other sectors are dominated by open source? It probably has a great deal to do with the fact that entertainment is largely based on deriving value directly from the consumption. There are still ancillary revenue sources (merchandising, movie deals, etc) that can generate alternate revenue streams, but the bottom line, without generating compensation directly from consumption, not from alternate revenue streams, making a game would not be profitable.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      I didn't mean to imply you don't know what you're talking about, so apologies if I came off that way. But this.. entertainment is largely based on deriving value directly from the consumption This sounds like a failure of business model rather than an intractable problem. Okay, a hypothetical: Pretend for a moment that you write an open source game, distributing the source on Github or similar, but you also sell a complete packaged copy for real money on places like Steam and GOG. Do you think that the presence of the source-based copy will impact one iota the sales on the storefronts? Before answering, consider that it takes less skill and less sophistication to download from a torrent site and apply a crack than it does to set up a build environment. I don't think it does. And I think this is a normative assumption (can't sell open source!) about the industry that's been accepted without any real supporting facts.

cyphar 11y ago

> >The whole point of the free software movement is to demand freedom for all users. > No it isn't. It's to demand the work of others be free for consumption by anyone without compensation. Users have a choice - free software (there are very few categories of end-user tools that I can think of that aren't well served by open source these days), or commercial software. SUSE, RedHat and numerous other companies make plenty of money selling free software (and selling support for it). This is is "commercial free software". You don't seem to understand what "free software" refers to. It does not refer to price. It refers to freedom. > If the free software movement cared about freedom they would recognize that preserving user choice is a more important and lofty goal than just saying free all the things. You are redefining the word freedom. Freedom refers to control over your own life. You don't have such control when using proprietary software. The only way to have such control is the 4 fundamental freedoms. Any other definition is just muddying the waters. > A militant approach to demanding that everything be free is an entitlement that doesn't value the disproportionate investment of resources (time, money, energy, etc) that software developers invest in their work in contrast to the value that users extract from that expenditure. Given that Linux and GNU exist, and are being sold and have funding from large companies, I call bullshit. Just because some companies have decided to sell proprietary software doesn't mean that suddenly it isn't possible to sell free software. > Software developers should be free to release software for free if they choose to, and users should have the right to use software that has been released for free (for example, unencumbered by hardware manufacturer restrictions that exist strictly to prevent the end user installing chosen software), but demanding the work of others for free is nonsense. Again, you're not understanding what free software is. It is software which respects your freedom. It does not have to be gratis (without price) in order to respect your freedom.