3 ms·
Yes, copyright is unethical, as is closed-source distribution. Sell actual work - there's always work to be done on or around software. My project is livestream
by vertex-four 6y ago
Yes, copyright is unethical, as is closed-source distribution. Sell actual work - there's always work to be done on or around software. My project is livestreaming software, but it turns out there's plenty of folks who don't want to set up livestreaming software, they just want to pay someone for the result of having a solid branded stream - so my business model is providing them that end. If I could do it reasonably with existing software, I would, but I can't, so I'm writing software for it.
- barking 6y agoAnd there's nothing to stop someone else letting you write all the code and get paid for the bit you charge for, right. In fact they could work full time on that while you have to spend time doing software updates/maintenance etc.
- vertex-four 6y agoIf I'm not making money off it, I'm going to stop writing it and find something else to do, obviously? Being able to say "I have deep technical knowledge of this domain, proven by the fact that I literally wrote the software and can customise it to your needs" is worth something, unsurprisingly.
- barking 6y agoHow could a programmer of great ability ever become wealthy living by your ethics?
- vertex-four 6y agoHow could an architect of great ability ever become wealthy if they weren’t able to just sell the same building design over and over again with no work for decades? Oh wait, that’s the norm.
- barking 6y agoEarlier you said copyright is unethical and also why should you be paid extra for work you did in the past. Architects have copyright to their work. They do sell the same plans over and over. No one can just copy their work without paying royalties or at least getting permission.
- vertex-four 6y agoWealthy, great architects make their fortunes on bespoke work. Even the plans they sell often have to be changed for each location - it's uncommon that the exact same building can be replicated in different locations over time, due to local planning constraints, preferences of their clients, new regulations, and so on.
- barking 6y agoGreat software developers deserve to make their fortune too and should be free to do so in a manner that suits both them and their (consenting adult) clients without name-calling from developers with different philosophy/orientation.
- vertex-four 6y agoCopyright is a legal fiction - it doesn't exist except by force of the state, and there's plenty of evidence that it has a large variety of downsides. I think it's entirely reasonable to argue for alternative methods of providing benefit to society that don't rely on having the state threaten people for you. Or, in other words - the default state of things is that copyright does not exist, not that it does. It's on copyright proponents to prove that we have a better world with it than without. Great software developers already largely make their fortune doing bespoke work for clients with a need for it. So do great lawyers, great doctors, great system administrators, great technical writers, and so on. This isn't a new idea.
- barking 6y ago
- Kim_Bruning 6y agoI think you're assuming that most software work is confection. In reality, or at least in my case, pretty much all the money I've ever earned was in doing bespoke work. You _could_ see contributions to FLOSS as loss leaders; though that wouldn't be accurate, since there are definitely benefits beyond just advertising your skills. A key benefit: if there is a set of freelancers working around a single FLOSS code-base, each of them actually benefits by contributing back; because the shared code-base increases in quantity and quality, and thus leads to competitive advantage for all.
- barking 6y agoI've never done any software consulting/contracting but I can see the sense in what you say.