6 ms·

This philosophy is disingenuous. To say it's "not about price" is side-stepping a major issue with the freedom of free software. If I sell you my software with

This philosophy is disingenuous. To say it's "not about price" is side-stepping a major issue with the freedom of free software. If I sell you my software with a "free as in freedom" license, you're now free to give it away yourself. So "free as in freedom" does also mean "free as in it costs you nothing" for everyone except the first customer. To be clear, I LOVE free software. I just also think it's more honest to say it's free in every sense of the word. This debate about "free as in free beer" versus "free as in freedom" is pedantic. Pragmatically speaking, I can't give you full freedom to modify and distribute my software without immediately reducing the market value of that software to zero. They go hand in hand. (Does that mean there are no business models for free software? Of course not. There are many proven ones, such as paid hosting of it, paid support and maintenance, paid customizations, etc. But the code itself is free in every sense of the word once you've granted that license to the first buyer.)

fipar 6y ago
I agree with what you say, but I think there are valid points in the beer vs speech part. I agree with you that it seems impossible to have free as in speech software that isn't also free as in beer, but you can have free as in beer software that's a gateway to vendor lock-in, for example.
- ttuominen 6y ago
  Exactly. The OP correctly argued that libre practically implies free-as-in-beer, but I think the point of the distinction is to argue that free-as-in-beer doesn't imply libre. So it's a useful distinction.
  - nickelcitymario 6y ago
    This is certainly true. It's very much possible (and common) to give away software without giving away any rights to it. If that was the only point GNU was trying to make, I'd be in full support. But that doesn't seem to be their only point. As I read it, they're arguing that freedom-of-speech does not imply freedom-from-cost. And I think that's nonsense (again, after the first sale). Am I wrong to read their philosophy this way?
woofie11 6y ago
"Free-as-in-beer" only makes sense if the customer is e.g. a student. Now that I have a real job and manage people, it's "free as in $200/hour employee time instead." It's like providing the ingredients for beer for free, and people can have free beer, if they agree to brew it themselves. I want the free-as-in-freedom since if the vendor goes under, I can pick up the pieces myself. If my vendor goes Oracle and decides to milk me, I can find an alternative supplier. I don't want free-as-in-beer because I'd rather pay a vendor $10 or $50 per month or something than pay my IT staff $100 or $200 per hour. I'd also rather pay the original author $50 per month than pay an off-brand hosting company $25 per month because (1) I'll get better support (2) I'm not a douchebag.
- sounds 6y ago
  In essence, the freedom "free as in freedom" means you are free to pay nothing, or pay it to the off-brand hosting company. As you say, "I'm not a douchebag" implies there's some kind of karma involved; when MySQL "went Oracle," the free-as-in-freedom choice of the developers was to start MariaDB and many in the community interpreted this as the developers' way of saying "I'm not a douchebag." Oracle kind of has a reputation. So in essence, if someone pays me when they were free to pay the off-brand hosting company, then it is a strong positive signal. Companies that Oracle-lock their customers are trading long-term profitability for revenue this quarter, as their savvy customers will immediately begin looking elsewhere for a competitor. Basically if I grant you, the user, the freedom not to pay me, I can trust the signal that those who do pay me want more of my product. Economies are all about signalling.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    No. I'm not free to pay nothing. I'm free to pay: * My IT guy $200 per hour. If maintaining a technology takes a day a month -- which is wildly optimistic -- that's $1600 per month * The organization which developed the tool e.g. $50-$200 per month * A random outsourcing organization $10-$50 per month By making your software free software, I will still pay you, but I know that: 1. If you do decide to spike prices, I can go to the off-brand company or to my IT guy. You better provide better service than the off-brand at lower prices than my IT guy. 2. If you do go out of business, I can go to my IT guy. It's all about power dynamics. You don't have the option to f- me, and by having taken away that option, you've made it more likely I'll buy from you. It's often just simple good business. Oracle's business model is largely about buying up companies with large locked-in entrenched bases, spiking prices while lowering costs, and milking cash cows as the cows gradually die. They did that to Java and a few others. Free software means I can't get Oracled too badly. Some companies take a middle ground by e.g using open APIs. For example, AWS has services which have better price/performance than free software, but maintain compatibility. I'll be more likely to use those than proprietary alternatives because if AWS decided to Oracle me, I can switch to the free software version. There are systems like git, where essential business value is free software, so I can move my code out and around if Microsoft decides to oracle me, but where there is a significant proprietary value-add. Your value to customer goes up with: 100% free > hybrid models > proprietary Your barriers to competitors go the other way. This isn't just signaling. It's power dynamics. Companies send out false signals all the time. This is a hard barrier. The right business model depends on your market and technology. I've mostly done free software, and that's mostly a matter of choice -- I've picked businesses where 100% free makes business sense.
momokoko 6y ago
It’s one thing I’ve always struggled with organizations like GNU. There is a vested interest in convincing me of something as opposed to being as up front and obvious as possible. They aren’t trying to teach me as much as they are trying to persuade me. This ends up resulting in awkward doublespeak as you described. I love GNU and truly want it to survive and prosper into the future. I feel like the younger audience is too aware of these tricks and the technique at this point does more harm than good. Instead or persuasion, it is losing trust. Which is sad because of all the organizations in tech(when you include for-profit companies) GNU is one of the organizations I can trust the most to act in my best interests.
thekingofh 6y ago
The only model that seems to work with GNU's philosophy while also compensating the developer fairly is that you have to create the software, or a demo of the software, and then do a kickstarter style fundraising effort BEFORE you release it. You can have it completely done, but in essence the first customer doesn't get the software until you get paid. Then they are free to do whatever they want with it once you release it. Updates can be released on the same model. NOBODY gets it until you can support yourself on the income before releasing it into the wild, because once you do, there's no way to get compensated without some kind of support contract (which is no guarantee) or restricting the user from doing what they want with their own bits.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Make no mistake, closed source mostly works out the same way except the "pre-funding" tends to come from VCs and traditional investing.
- cure 6y ago
  It's an interesting approach, I have not seen it used (much?) for free software. Are there prominent examples that I'm not aware of? One problem with this would be ongoing software maintenance. This could be great to launch a new piece of software; how do you fund the maintenance?
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  Well, that's certainly one model. But I don't think it's the only one. There's a lot of ways to make money around free software. But pretending that you can maintain the price of the software itself after you've given every buyer the right to sell or give it away for free is silly. It's not silly to give it away. It's not silly to sell it once and accept that it's not free. But it IS silly to pretend that's not what you're doing.
defgeneric 6y ago
It's frankly ridiculous to suggest the GNU philosophy is "disingenuous". The issues that motivated "free as in freedom" go back decades [0]. It was not some "disingenuous" attempt at "reducing the market value of software to zero". Not at all. [0] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
- Rexxar 6y ago
  I don't see why something "going back decades" can be an argument on the validity of a philosophy.
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  Although I agree that their purpose wasn't to reduce the market value of software to zero, it is the effect. That's why it's disingenuous to me. It's an attempt to route around an obvious truth: if you allow someone to distribute your software freely, you've set its market value to zero. Not sure how you can disagree with this. You haven't offered any counterargument to that.
zests 6y ago
You are misunderstanding what these terms actually mean. Free as in freedom basically implies free as in price. No one is hiding this. Free as in price does not imply free as in freedom. Free as in freedom is a lot stronger of a concept than free as in price. You've stumbled upon one of the many benefits and consequences of free as in freedom. It should be obvious that the market value of anything free as in freedom will be zero. If you're an American citizen, I'll sell you freedom from government censorship for $5.
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  I don't think I misunderstand the terminology at all. My point was that "free as in freedom" implies free as in price. That's literally what I said. I do acknowledge that I appear to be in disagreement with many people about what GNU's point is when they insist "it's not about price". To me, "it's not about price" means you're trying to say that price has nothing to do with freedom. For others, "it's not about price" simply means that's not the focus, or not the only point, or not the main point. Which is a fair and perhaps more accurate understanding of GNU's point. I could very well be mistaken about GNU's intent. Judging by the amount of downvotes I'm getting, I'm clearly in a minority. But I remain unconvinced.
chongli 6y ago
Debian is free software. You can purchase Debian install CDs for a nominal price. You are free to share your Debian install CDs with others as much as you want. This is free as in freedom, even though you paid money for it.
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  I would argue you're buying the physical medium, not the software itself. But your point is well taken.
detaro 6y ago
It's not about the price, because merely being Freeware is not the same and not the point.
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  It seems to me that it is, at least in part, about price. It's not the only thing it's about. But it's definitely a big part of it.

fipar 6y ago

I agree with what you say, but I think there are valid points in the beer vs speech part. I agree with you that it seems impossible to have free as in speech software that isn't also free as in beer, but you can have free as in beer software that's a gateway to vendor lock-in, for example.

ttuominen 6y ago
Exactly. The OP correctly argued that libre practically implies free-as-in-beer, but I think the point of the distinction is to argue that free-as-in-beer doesn't imply libre. So it's a useful distinction.
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  This is certainly true. It's very much possible (and common) to give away software without giving away any rights to it. If that was the only point GNU was trying to make, I'd be in full support. But that doesn't seem to be their only point. As I read it, they're arguing that freedom-of-speech does not imply freedom-from-cost. And I think that's nonsense (again, after the first sale). Am I wrong to read their philosophy this way?

woofie11 6y ago

"Free-as-in-beer" only makes sense if the customer is e.g. a student. Now that I have a real job and manage people, it's "free as in $200/hour employee time instead." It's like providing the ingredients for beer for free, and people can have free beer, if they agree to brew it themselves. I want the free-as-in-freedom since if the vendor goes under, I can pick up the pieces myself. If my vendor goes Oracle and decides to milk me, I can find an alternative supplier. I don't want free-as-in-beer because I'd rather pay a vendor $10 or $50 per month or something than pay my IT staff $100 or $200 per hour. I'd also rather pay the original author $50 per month than pay an off-brand hosting company $25 per month because (1) I'll get better support (2) I'm not a douchebag.

sounds 6y ago
In essence, the freedom "free as in freedom" means you are free to pay nothing, or pay it to the off-brand hosting company. As you say, "I'm not a douchebag" implies there's some kind of karma involved; when MySQL "went Oracle," the free-as-in-freedom choice of the developers was to start MariaDB and many in the community interpreted this as the developers' way of saying "I'm not a douchebag." Oracle kind of has a reputation. So in essence, if someone pays me when they were free to pay the off-brand hosting company, then it is a strong positive signal. Companies that Oracle-lock their customers are trading long-term profitability for revenue this quarter, as their savvy customers will immediately begin looking elsewhere for a competitor. Basically if I grant you, the user, the freedom not to pay me, I can trust the signal that those who do pay me want more of my product. Economies are all about signalling.
- woofie11 6y ago
  No. I'm not free to pay nothing. I'm free to pay: * My IT guy $200 per hour. If maintaining a technology takes a day a month -- which is wildly optimistic -- that's $1600 per month * The organization which developed the tool e.g. $50-$200 per month * A random outsourcing organization $10-$50 per month By making your software free software, I will still pay you, but I know that: 1. If you do decide to spike prices, I can go to the off-brand company or to my IT guy. You better provide better service than the off-brand at lower prices than my IT guy. 2. If you do go out of business, I can go to my IT guy. It's all about power dynamics. You don't have the option to f- me, and by having taken away that option, you've made it more likely I'll buy from you. It's often just simple good business. Oracle's business model is largely about buying up companies with large locked-in entrenched bases, spiking prices while lowering costs, and milking cash cows as the cows gradually die. They did that to Java and a few others. Free software means I can't get Oracled too badly. Some companies take a middle ground by e.g using open APIs. For example, AWS has services which have better price/performance than free software, but maintain compatibility. I'll be more likely to use those than proprietary alternatives because if AWS decided to Oracle me, I can switch to the free software version. There are systems like git, where essential business value is free software, so I can move my code out and around if Microsoft decides to oracle me, but where there is a significant proprietary value-add. Your value to customer goes up with: 100% free > hybrid models > proprietary Your barriers to competitors go the other way. This isn't just signaling. It's power dynamics. Companies send out false signals all the time. This is a hard barrier. The right business model depends on your market and technology. I've mostly done free software, and that's mostly a matter of choice -- I've picked businesses where 100% free makes business sense.

momokoko 6y ago

It’s one thing I’ve always struggled with organizations like GNU. There is a vested interest in convincing me of something as opposed to being as up front and obvious as possible. They aren’t trying to teach me as much as they are trying to persuade me. This ends up resulting in awkward doublespeak as you described. I love GNU and truly want it to survive and prosper into the future. I feel like the younger audience is too aware of these tricks and the technique at this point does more harm than good. Instead or persuasion, it is losing trust. Which is sad because of all the organizations in tech(when you include for-profit companies) GNU is one of the organizations I can trust the most to act in my best interests.

thekingofh 6y ago

The only model that seems to work with GNU's philosophy while also compensating the developer fairly is that you have to create the software, or a demo of the software, and then do a kickstarter style fundraising effort BEFORE you release it. You can have it completely done, but in essence the first customer doesn't get the software until you get paid. Then they are free to do whatever they want with it once you release it. Updates can be released on the same model. NOBODY gets it until you can support yourself on the income before releasing it into the wild, because once you do, there's no way to get compensated without some kind of support contract (which is no guarantee) or restricting the user from doing what they want with their own bits.

cycloptic 6y ago
Make no mistake, closed source mostly works out the same way except the "pre-funding" tends to come from VCs and traditional investing.
cure 6y ago
It's an interesting approach, I have not seen it used (much?) for free software. Are there prominent examples that I'm not aware of? One problem with this would be ongoing software maintenance. This could be great to launch a new piece of software; how do you fund the maintenance?
nickelcitymario 6y ago
Well, that's certainly one model. But I don't think it's the only one. There's a lot of ways to make money around free software. But pretending that you can maintain the price of the software itself after you've given every buyer the right to sell or give it away for free is silly. It's not silly to give it away. It's not silly to sell it once and accept that it's not free. But it IS silly to pretend that's not what you're doing.

defgeneric 6y ago

It's frankly ridiculous to suggest the GNU philosophy is "disingenuous". The issues that motivated "free as in freedom" go back decades [0]. It was not some "disingenuous" attempt at "reducing the market value of software to zero". Not at all. [0] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html

Rexxar 6y ago
I don't see why something "going back decades" can be an argument on the validity of a philosophy.
nickelcitymario 6y ago
Although I agree that their purpose wasn't to reduce the market value of software to zero, it is the effect. That's why it's disingenuous to me. It's an attempt to route around an obvious truth: if you allow someone to distribute your software freely, you've set its market value to zero. Not sure how you can disagree with this. You haven't offered any counterargument to that.

zests 6y ago

You are misunderstanding what these terms actually mean. Free as in freedom basically implies free as in price. No one is hiding this. Free as in price does not imply free as in freedom. Free as in freedom is a lot stronger of a concept than free as in price. You've stumbled upon one of the many benefits and consequences of free as in freedom. It should be obvious that the market value of anything free as in freedom will be zero. If you're an American citizen, I'll sell you freedom from government censorship for $5.

nickelcitymario 6y ago
I don't think I misunderstand the terminology at all. My point was that "free as in freedom" implies free as in price. That's literally what I said. I do acknowledge that I appear to be in disagreement with many people about what GNU's point is when they insist "it's not about price". To me, "it's not about price" means you're trying to say that price has nothing to do with freedom. For others, "it's not about price" simply means that's not the focus, or not the only point, or not the main point. Which is a fair and perhaps more accurate understanding of GNU's point. I could very well be mistaken about GNU's intent. Judging by the amount of downvotes I'm getting, I'm clearly in a minority. But I remain unconvinced.

chongli 6y ago

Debian is free software. You can purchase Debian install CDs for a nominal price. You are free to share your Debian install CDs with others as much as you want. This is free as in freedom, even though you paid money for it.

nickelcitymario 6y ago
I would argue you're buying the physical medium, not the software itself. But your point is well taken.

detaro 6y ago

It's not about the price, because merely being Freeware is not the same and not the point.

nickelcitymario 6y ago
It seems to me that it is, at least in part, about price. It's not the only thing it's about. But it's definitely a big part of it.