4 ms·

Just in the image management space, we do have GIMP [1], Inkscape [2], Krita [3], just to name a few FOSS applications using GPL that come to my mind right now,

Just in the image management space, we do have GIMP [1], Inkscape [2], Krita [3], just to name a few FOSS applications using GPL that come to my mind right now, among many others. Photoshop may probably not have come into existence in RMS's world, but that wouldn't have precluded any of these from coming up (even if they appear not to be of the same caliber or if they seem like clones of proprietary applications). Your statement would've made a lot of sense probably several decades ago though. [1]: https://www.gimp.org/about/ https://www.gimp.org/about/ [2]: https://inkscape.org/en/about/license/ https://inkscape.org/en/about/license/ [3]: https://docs.krita.org/KritaFAQ https://docs.krita.org/KritaFAQ

rglullis 9y ago
As much as I am big supporter of FOSS - writing open source software as much as I can, financially support developers, and actively try to avoid proprietary solutions when there is an adequate free alternative - I am yet to see any kind of open-source software that is original or that it has managed to create a new industry on its own. All praise to GIMP, Inkscape and Krita, but they only exist because some proprietary software already existed and created the demand for an free alternative.
- cyphar 9y ago
  That's true for proprietary software as well. Hell, most software is a remake of something that existed in the past. You can find examples of original free software projects that have caused real change (one that comes to mind is the whole Zones/Jails/Containers thing), but that's not really a good measure of whether free software is succeeding. There are countless free software projects that were created as alternatives to proprietary software and have exceeded the original by orders of magnitude. If you want to look at a measure of success other than "amount of work you can do with free software" then that's what you should be looking at. Improvement and innovation often doesn't come from some massive new technology, it's always gradual improvements that really make the difference.
  - rglullis 9y ago
    I never said that FOSS is worse than proprietary software. This is not what the discussion is about. What I am arguing is simply that if proprietary software was forbidden, a lot of innovation would be restricted. Imagine today if we were living in RMS world and everyone that writes software needed to have their software openly published and freely distributed. How many would simply not even start? Would there be a Microsoft, Google or Apple or Facebook? No. Who would be the big player that would have any interest in seeing the development of any technology that could threaten their business? Most "innovation" would happen in academic settings, and it would never make the jump to any industry.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      That feels like a backwards argument to me. There are many free software companies (RedHat, SUSE, Canonical, etc) that create plenty of innovative software. I'm sure you know the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech", but your argument appears to be conflating proprietary and commercial. Especially when you start discussing academic settings (which, by the way, uses a lot of proprietary software). But more importantly, a discussion of "what could've been" is not really helpful to a discussion of what we should do today. I could equally argue that if users were more empowered than they are now, that you would see much higher levels of technical literacy and much more innovation. Do I have evidence to back that up? No, but neither do you. I can give you more examples of free software that didn't have a proprietary counterpart, but I don't think that you really want such examples. You want to discuss an alternate universe where proprietary software doesn't exist. > Would there be a Microsoft, Google or Apple or Facebook? No. How on Earth could you possibly know that? You're possibly right that they wouldn't be identical to their current counterparts (they probably wouldn't be able to mistreat their users to the same extent), but those companies and those products might still exist. Social networks existed before Facebook. Hand-held computers existed before Apple. Search engines existed before Google. Operating systems existed before Microsoft.
      - rglullis 9y ago
        The discussion is not about "what could've been", much less about "what should we do today". It is mainly about what "would've been if we lived in a world where RMS managed to forbid proprietary/closed-source software". I posit that if this prevailed in the 70's or 80's, there would simply be no software revolution.

rglullis 9y ago

As much as I am big supporter of FOSS - writing open source software as much as I can, financially support developers, and actively try to avoid proprietary solutions when there is an adequate free alternative - I am yet to see any kind of open-source software that is original or that it has managed to create a new industry on its own. All praise to GIMP, Inkscape and Krita, but they only exist because some proprietary software already existed and created the demand for an free alternative.

cyphar 9y ago
That's true for proprietary software as well. Hell, most software is a remake of something that existed in the past. You can find examples of original free software projects that have caused real change (one that comes to mind is the whole Zones/Jails/Containers thing), but that's not really a good measure of whether free software is succeeding. There are countless free software projects that were created as alternatives to proprietary software and have exceeded the original by orders of magnitude. If you want to look at a measure of success other than "amount of work you can do with free software" then that's what you should be looking at. Improvement and innovation often doesn't come from some massive new technology, it's always gradual improvements that really make the difference.
- rglullis 9y ago
  I never said that FOSS is worse than proprietary software. This is not what the discussion is about. What I am arguing is simply that if proprietary software was forbidden, a lot of innovation would be restricted. Imagine today if we were living in RMS world and everyone that writes software needed to have their software openly published and freely distributed. How many would simply not even start? Would there be a Microsoft, Google or Apple or Facebook? No. Who would be the big player that would have any interest in seeing the development of any technology that could threaten their business? Most "innovation" would happen in academic settings, and it would never make the jump to any industry.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    That feels like a backwards argument to me. There are many free software companies (RedHat, SUSE, Canonical, etc) that create plenty of innovative software. I'm sure you know the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech", but your argument appears to be conflating proprietary and commercial. Especially when you start discussing academic settings (which, by the way, uses a lot of proprietary software). But more importantly, a discussion of "what could've been" is not really helpful to a discussion of what we should do today. I could equally argue that if users were more empowered than they are now, that you would see much higher levels of technical literacy and much more innovation. Do I have evidence to back that up? No, but neither do you. I can give you more examples of free software that didn't have a proprietary counterpart, but I don't think that you really want such examples. You want to discuss an alternate universe where proprietary software doesn't exist. > Would there be a Microsoft, Google or Apple or Facebook? No. How on Earth could you possibly know that? You're possibly right that they wouldn't be identical to their current counterparts (they probably wouldn't be able to mistreat their users to the same extent), but those companies and those products might still exist. Social networks existed before Facebook. Hand-held computers existed before Apple. Search engines existed before Google. Operating systems existed before Microsoft.
    - rglullis 9y ago
      The discussion is not about "what could've been", much less about "what should we do today". It is mainly about what "would've been if we lived in a world where RMS managed to forbid proprietary/closed-source software". I posit that if this prevailed in the 70's or 80's, there would simply be no software revolution.