3 ms·

No, that's not the way it works. Consumers pay for services rendered, not for R&D.

by mfukar 10y ago

rglullis 10y ago
First, I am not telling all consumers to do it, but the ones that "really want to support free software" Besides, with software (and free software even more so), services rendered is R&D.
- mfukar 10y ago
  So, if a consumer has the reasonable expectation to pay for something which fulfils an immediate need, they do not "really want to support free software"? Surely you must understand how that is a meaningless phrase? Software services are R&D _at some point in time_, which is also a meaningless phrase. Right now I can go buy Microsoft Office and fulfil all my document editing needs I'll ever have. However MSOffice to me is a product, not some distant R&D objective. Maybe FOSS could be better guided by focusing on what a product really is.
  - rglullis 10y ago
    If your focus is only on your editing needs and you buy MS-Office and stop there - then no, you do not really want to support free software. If on the other hand you have a document edit need that no free software can provide, and you understand that you can buy MS-Office to fulfill a need and also donate/support to LibreOffice or any other project you might be consider worthy of support - then you are at least walking the walk and doing something in support of FOSS. It seems to me you are making an either/or proposition: either you are a consumer or you are an contributor of software. It doesn't have to be like this.
    - mfukar 10y ago
      It is an exclusive proposition for non-FOSS. As a customer, I can't contribute to MSOffice. However, I can contribute _and_ be a customer to FOSS. That's not what we're talking about, though.
      - rglullis 10y ago
        To be honest, I think we both lost the point of the conversation. All I was trying to say is that those that (1) respect/value FOSS but (2) end up buying/consuming a proprietary solution due to the current shortcomings of the free alternatives can still support FOSS, which might lead to (3) not needing proprietary solutions in the future. I don't want us to be arguing past each other, so please help me understand what you mean by "this is not how it works". Does it mean that you think that such strategy can not work? If so, why not?

No, that's not the way it works. Consumers pay for services rendered, not for R&D.

by mfukar 10y ago

No, that's not the way it works. Consumers pay for services rendered, not for R&D.

First, I am not telling all consumers to do it, but the ones that "really want to support free software" Besides, with software (and free software even more so), services rendered is R&D.

mfukar 10y ago
So, if a consumer has the reasonable expectation to pay for something which fulfils an immediate need, they do not "really want to support free software"? Surely you must understand how that is a meaningless phrase? Software services are R&D _at some point in time_, which is also a meaningless phrase. Right now I can go buy Microsoft Office and fulfil all my document editing needs I'll ever have. However MSOffice to me is a product, not some distant R&D objective. Maybe FOSS could be better guided by focusing on what a product really is.
- rglullis 10y ago
  If your focus is only on your editing needs and you buy MS-Office and stop there - then no, you do not really want to support free software. If on the other hand you have a document edit need that no free software can provide, and you understand that you can buy MS-Office to fulfill a need and also donate/support to LibreOffice or any other project you might be consider worthy of support - then you are at least walking the walk and doing something in support of FOSS. It seems to me you are making an either/or proposition: either you are a consumer or you are an contributor of software. It doesn't have to be like this.
  - mfukar 10y ago
    It is an exclusive proposition for non-FOSS. As a customer, I can't contribute to MSOffice. However, I can contribute _and_ be a customer to FOSS. That's not what we're talking about, though.
    - rglullis 10y ago
      To be honest, I think we both lost the point of the conversation. All I was trying to say is that those that (1) respect/value FOSS but (2) end up buying/consuming a proprietary solution due to the current shortcomings of the free alternatives can still support FOSS, which might lead to (3) not needing proprietary solutions in the future. I don't want us to be arguing past each other, so please help me understand what you mean by "this is not how it works". Does it mean that you think that such strategy can not work? If so, why not?