5 ms·

> If someone offers you something of value for free, politely say "no thanks" and run the other way. Where does free software fit in this?

macawfish 8y ago
Incidentally, a lot of people do say "no thanks" and run the other way when presented with free (as in freedom) software
- zelphirkalt 8y ago
  I think they are too inexperienced or shortsighted to see the long term implications of opting in to proprietary software and depending on it. They will later suffer for it, until they learn. And some never learn.
awakeasleep 8y ago
Exactly where the license places it
doctorpangloss 8y ago
It's great that "if it's free, you should run away" or "if you're not the customer, you're the product" or any of those other sayings are finally been seen as extremely reductive.
- vageli 8y ago
  > It's great that "if it's free, you should run away" or "if you're not the customer, you're the product" or any of those other sayings are finally been seen as extremely reductive. Is it really the case that we've forgotten "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"
  - Jonanin 8y ago
    That's not the same thing.
geofft 8y ago
Understand why it's free and where the offerer derives value. - If it's from a company that is commoditizing its money-making products' internal dependencies, and it is in your interest for the software to become a commodity (e.g., you're pondering switching to Linux, which has patches from Google), great. Tough luck for those commercializing that software, though - so just make sure that development is sustainable. - If it's from a company that's commoditizing its money-making products' complements (see https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ if you haven't), think carefully about how that complement relationship works. If it's Red Hat producing a window manager, sure, whatever. If it's Red Hat producing a complex infrastructure platform, and they make money based on support to make that platform work, maybe not so much. - If it's from a company that's making money in an unclear, unrelated way (e.g., you're pondering using Android, which is developed by Google), look extremely skeptically and figure out what their real incentives are. There is a legitimate explanation for Android and Chrome: it's in Google's interest to promote the web as a platform, because they make money on web advertising. But that explanation might not be totally convincing to you, in which case running the other way is a fine answer. - If it's from a source whose motivations are not linked to the capitalist machine (e.g., someone with a well-paying day job who's working on a side project on weekends), that's fine. Note that things from companies are almost never in this category. - If it's from a company that hasn't yet realized that it's beholden to the capitalist machine (e.g., the early years of Ubuntu, or a young company with too much VC money), you might as well take advantage of it in the short term but have some plans about the long term. - If it's from a source that you can pay, despite it being free, and you can afford to pay for it, do so. Pitch in to that developer's Patreon, buy the paid license for the neat monitoring product your company is using, etc.
rayiner 8y ago
Free software has unfortunately turned into a major enabler of the advertising economy. Take Android for example. Before Android, phone makers had to pay for their mobile OS. It was something like $15 to license Symbian. Android destroyed Symbian, in part because it was “free.” But what was the result? It’s not actually free to develop Android, and most of the work is done by paid developers. That investment is recouped, of course, by Google’s data mining and advertising platforms built on Android. And Android destroyed the for-pay mobile OS market—it’s impossible to compete with a “free” OS. The same thing happened to web browsers, though it’s Microsoft’s fault. You had to pay for web browsers back in the day. And then Microsoft bundled IE to leverage its OS monopoly. And then Google made Chrome, an ad supported browser. Now, the browser is just a purpose-built vector for advertising. Even though Mozilla still exists, almost all its revenue comes from Google. The problem with free software is that unpaid developers can’t really do things on the scale of Android or Chrome. Today, the overwhelming majority of Linux contributions come from paid developers. That forces you to think about how to monetize the software, if you can’t just charge for it. And that leads to advertising, at least on the consumer side. Open source works okay for businesses, where companies like RedHat can pay for development through support contracts. But it’s been a disaster for consumers. The landscape is littered with formerly viable software niches (photo and video editors, word processors and spreadsheets, etc.) that have been decimated by either free software or free web apps which are linked to advertising.

macawfish 8y ago

Incidentally, a lot of people do say "no thanks" and run the other way when presented with free (as in freedom) software

zelphirkalt 8y ago
I think they are too inexperienced or shortsighted to see the long term implications of opting in to proprietary software and depending on it. They will later suffer for it, until they learn. And some never learn.

awakeasleep 8y ago

Exactly where the license places it

doctorpangloss 8y ago

It's great that "if it's free, you should run away" or "if you're not the customer, you're the product" or any of those other sayings are finally been seen as extremely reductive.

vageli 8y ago
> It's great that "if it's free, you should run away" or "if you're not the customer, you're the product" or any of those other sayings are finally been seen as extremely reductive. Is it really the case that we've forgotten "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"
- Jonanin 8y ago
  That's not the same thing.

geofft 8y ago

Understand why it's free and where the offerer derives value. - If it's from a company that is commoditizing its money-making products' internal dependencies, and it is in your interest for the software to become a commodity (e.g., you're pondering switching to Linux, which has patches from Google), great. Tough luck for those commercializing that software, though - so just make sure that development is sustainable. - If it's from a company that's commoditizing its money-making products' complements (see https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ if you haven't), think carefully about how that complement relationship works. If it's Red Hat producing a window manager, sure, whatever. If it's Red Hat producing a complex infrastructure platform, and they make money based on support to make that platform work, maybe not so much. - If it's from a company that's making money in an unclear, unrelated way (e.g., you're pondering using Android, which is developed by Google), look extremely skeptically and figure out what their real incentives are. There is a legitimate explanation for Android and Chrome: it's in Google's interest to promote the web as a platform, because they make money on web advertising. But that explanation might not be totally convincing to you, in which case running the other way is a fine answer. - If it's from a source whose motivations are not linked to the capitalist machine (e.g., someone with a well-paying day job who's working on a side project on weekends), that's fine. Note that things from companies are almost never in this category. - If it's from a company that hasn't yet realized that it's beholden to the capitalist machine (e.g., the early years of Ubuntu, or a young company with too much VC money), you might as well take advantage of it in the short term but have some plans about the long term. - If it's from a source that you can pay, despite it being free, and you can afford to pay for it, do so. Pitch in to that developer's Patreon, buy the paid license for the neat monitoring product your company is using, etc.

rayiner 8y ago

Free software has unfortunately turned into a major enabler of the advertising economy. Take Android for example. Before Android, phone makers had to pay for their mobile OS. It was something like $15 to license Symbian. Android destroyed Symbian, in part because it was “free.” But what was the result? It’s not actually free to develop Android, and most of the work is done by paid developers. That investment is recouped, of course, by Google’s data mining and advertising platforms built on Android. And Android destroyed the for-pay mobile OS market—it’s impossible to compete with a “free” OS. The same thing happened to web browsers, though it’s Microsoft’s fault. You had to pay for web browsers back in the day. And then Microsoft bundled IE to leverage its OS monopoly. And then Google made Chrome, an ad supported browser. Now, the browser is just a purpose-built vector for advertising. Even though Mozilla still exists, almost all its revenue comes from Google. The problem with free software is that unpaid developers can’t really do things on the scale of Android or Chrome. Today, the overwhelming majority of Linux contributions come from paid developers. That forces you to think about how to monetize the software, if you can’t just charge for it. And that leads to advertising, at least on the consumer side. Open source works okay for businesses, where companies like RedHat can pay for development through support contracts. But it’s been a disaster for consumers. The landscape is littered with formerly viable software niches (photo and video editors, word processors and spreadsheets, etc.) that have been decimated by either free software or free web apps which are linked to advertising.