5 ms·
It doesn't look like he said nobody should make any money. He said that nobody should install non-free software, which if everyone did as RMS wanted (they won'
by ajscherer 16y ago
It doesn't look like he said nobody should make any money. He said that nobody should install non-free software, which if everyone did as RMS wanted (they won't) would imply that one couldn't make money selling non-free software.
Why is it that so many people believe they have a God-given right to make money by doing a certain activity? I see this same thinking all the time in arguments about the future of newspapers. Programmers are generally smart people. I'm sure most of them could find a way to make money if everyone stopped buying proprietary software.
- logic 16y agoYou have a right to try to start a business around a given activity. You do not have the right to succeed.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoYou might want to read question 4, where his answer says the exact opposite of what you are claiming, and points to this article for further information: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- ajscherer 16y agoYou're not a bad person for wanting that. If your argument is that he is insulting you, and that is wrong, then I agree with you. My point was that people should only expect to make money by doing something other people are willing to pay for, whether they love it or hate it, and whether it is hard or easy as hell. It seemed like you were saying programmers deserve to make money just because they work hard.
- chc 16y agoOnly in the same way that carmakers would find another way to make money if suddenly everybody stopped buying nonfree cars — they would stop making their unprofitable product and start making, I don't know, tractors or something. For people who like cars, this is not really a good situation.
- ajscherer 16y agoYes, but people buy nonfree cars, and carmakers stay in business, precisely because people like cars. In the same way I think that proprietary software will continue to be lucrative because in many cases people prefer it to free software, regardless what RMS thinks. I just don't think it's valid to say that carmakers should continue to be able to profit making cars in a world where nobody wants them simply because its hard work that they like.
- chc 16y agoI think I miscommunicated if that's what it sounds like I was saying. I agree with you. You posed the hypothetical "If everybody stopped buying proprietary software…", and suggested that programmers would get by just fine. My suggestion is that they would indeed get by just fine, by becoming something else. I don't think that will happen, though, for precisely the reason you state.
- avar 16y agoIf the market changed overnight so that nobody wanted to buy non-free cars, which for the sake of argument we'll define here as cars where the full schematics are under a free license like the GPL. Nothing would really change. The main effort of making a car is still making the car. Just because you can download recipes or a CAD drawing of a car chefs or car makers aren't going to go out of business. They provide a valuable service that people want to buy. Similarly, programs aren't going to write themselves. There's always going to be demand for skilled programmers, just like there's demand for skilled carpenters.