4 ms·

I don't see how those two are connected in any way. There exists plenty of proprietary software for linux as well - it's not like there is anything on the linux

I don't see how those two are connected in any way. There exists plenty of proprietary software for linux as well - it's not like there is anything on the linux desktop platform that prevents this from existing?

pjmlp 6y ago
The fight back from the community that makes such companies loose interest in GNU/Linux, specially the attack of FOSS clones.
- welterde 6y ago
  This doesn't make much sense.. the FOSS clones also exist on Windows and OSX. And lots of Windows software isn't available on OSX either (and vice versa).. How are you gonna blame that on the FOSS community?
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Except that those communities are willing to pay for software. Announce any "evil proprietary" software in places like HN, which should be about doing business to start with, and the top comments happen to be about forking, making FOSS clones and not paying a dime to evil overloards. Qt being discussed here is a very good example, tons of comments on how not to pay Qt, switch to alternatives, and how much evil they are for wanting remuneration for their work. Naturally companies then turn into the Apple, Google and Microsoft customer communities instead.
    - welterde 6y ago
      You are forgetting that so far qt is dual-licensed under GPL and commercial license so far. And there are a lot of FOSS projects that happen to use qt under the GPL so far. And for those projects there really is no other option than forking Qt or switching to alternatives if they stop providing the GPL licensed version for future version, since it would turn the FOSS project into a commercial one. You are essentially arguing that making software available for Linux as well increases the probability of FOSS clones. I would argue the inverse, since the motivation to create a FOSS clone is much higher if such software doesn't exist at all for a given platform (since some people will just buy the software and be done with it).
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        My own experience is that trying to sell software to GNU/Linux customers is a lost battle, unless it is behind a server wall.
        seba_dos1 6y ago
        I've paid for plenty of GNU/Linux software. It has to be Free Software though, otherwise I'm not interested.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        pjmlp 6y ago
        The confirmation that "evil proprietary business" companies should just focus on customers using Apple, Google and Microsoft platforms.
        welterde 6y ago
        Thus giving the maximum possible motivation for people to develop their own (FOSS or not) clones/implementations. Bonus points for including actively hostile things like DRM or requiring license servers or hardware tokens to improve the user experience.

pjmlp 6y ago

The fight back from the community that makes such companies loose interest in GNU/Linux, specially the attack of FOSS clones.

welterde 6y ago
This doesn't make much sense.. the FOSS clones also exist on Windows and OSX. And lots of Windows software isn't available on OSX either (and vice versa).. How are you gonna blame that on the FOSS community?
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Except that those communities are willing to pay for software. Announce any "evil proprietary" software in places like HN, which should be about doing business to start with, and the top comments happen to be about forking, making FOSS clones and not paying a dime to evil overloards. Qt being discussed here is a very good example, tons of comments on how not to pay Qt, switch to alternatives, and how much evil they are for wanting remuneration for their work. Naturally companies then turn into the Apple, Google and Microsoft customer communities instead.
  - welterde 6y ago
    You are forgetting that so far qt is dual-licensed under GPL and commercial license so far. And there are a lot of FOSS projects that happen to use qt under the GPL so far. And for those projects there really is no other option than forking Qt or switching to alternatives if they stop providing the GPL licensed version for future version, since it would turn the FOSS project into a commercial one. You are essentially arguing that making software available for Linux as well increases the probability of FOSS clones. I would argue the inverse, since the motivation to create a FOSS clone is much higher if such software doesn't exist at all for a given platform (since some people will just buy the software and be done with it).
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      My own experience is that trying to sell software to GNU/Linux customers is a lost battle, unless it is behind a server wall.
      - seba_dos1 6y ago
        I've paid for plenty of GNU/Linux software. It has to be Free Software though, otherwise I'm not interested.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        pjmlp 6y ago
        The confirmation that "evil proprietary business" companies should just focus on customers using Apple, Google and Microsoft platforms.
      - welterde 6y ago
        Thus giving the maximum possible motivation for people to develop their own (FOSS or not) clones/implementations. Bonus points for including actively hostile things like DRM or requiring license servers or hardware tokens to improve the user experience.