4 ms·

"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 ins

"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.
  - sounds 6y ago
    The signal I am receiving from your businesses is one that would make me only do business with you as a last resort, and then I would lock you in with contracts and spend a lot of time carefully studying everything. In other words, I'm signalling that the power-dynamics players end up costing too much.
    - woofie11 6y ago
      Fair enough. Fortunately, if you don't like me, you're welcome to take my code, and hire someone else to host it for you. There's a whole ecosystem of folks who will do that for you too, and quite a few of them are quite competent. Most of what I do is 100% pure free software. I used to do business-on-a-handshake too. Nowadays, I don't try to "lock [customers] in with contracts," but I do "spend a lot of time carefully studying everything" to make sure things are guaranteed fair to both sides. I'd advise the same, but until you've been down that road once or twice, I suspect you're right that we might not get along. I was there too at one point. The business-on-a-handshake crowd is a mixture of honest people and con artists. I was told by more seasoned mentors that good contracts make good partnerships, and now I believe that philosophy.
bitwize 6y ago
> Now that I have a real job and manage people, it's "free as in $200/hour employee time instead." Richard Stallman used to make that much consulting on GCC for clients -- in 1980s/early 90s dollars. His commitment to software freedom did not compel him to wear sackcloth and live as a pauper.
- woofie11 6y ago
  I've always been curious as to what did compel him to wear a sackcloth and live as a pauper... He's also got the MacArthur back when a megabuck was real money.
  - nescioquid 6y ago
    RMS told a story about the introduction of a new printer at the AI lab. The gist was that the manufacturer of the new printer would not release the source code (which was also under claimed copyright). At the time, this was a novelty; code was released so that people could modify it to work with the rest of the hardware they happen to have. The way RMS wrote of the event, I had the impression he felt shocked and betrayed. That was the inciting incident.
  - bitwize 6y ago
    Stallman is a man whose idiosyncrasies intensified over the decades. I think his current lifestyle was motivated in part by huffing his own farts (figuratively speaking) and believing his own hype. He thinks he's the free software prophet he's been cast as by admirers, and is deliberately renouncing the ways of the world, much as prophets did in times of old, and hippies do to the present day.
nickelcitymario 6y ago
I'm not arguing against free software. I love free software. I'm not arguing against the various business models that surround free software, such as vendor support contracts. I'm arguing that GNU seems uncomfortable with what seems to me to be a self-evident truth: As soon as I grant you the freedom to use my software in whatever way you like, including for distribution, that software is effectively free-in-price moving forward. And that's not a bad thing! What I DO think is bad is going to great lengths to avoid accepting that truth, or to avoid talking about it. Free software is free in every sense of the word, no matter what GNU wants to believe.

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.
- sounds 6y ago
  The signal I am receiving from your businesses is one that would make me only do business with you as a last resort, and then I would lock you in with contracts and spend a lot of time carefully studying everything. In other words, I'm signalling that the power-dynamics players end up costing too much.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Fair enough. Fortunately, if you don't like me, you're welcome to take my code, and hire someone else to host it for you. There's a whole ecosystem of folks who will do that for you too, and quite a few of them are quite competent. Most of what I do is 100% pure free software. I used to do business-on-a-handshake too. Nowadays, I don't try to "lock [customers] in with contracts," but I do "spend a lot of time carefully studying everything" to make sure things are guaranteed fair to both sides. I'd advise the same, but until you've been down that road once or twice, I suspect you're right that we might not get along. I was there too at one point. The business-on-a-handshake crowd is a mixture of honest people and con artists. I was told by more seasoned mentors that good contracts make good partnerships, and now I believe that philosophy.

bitwize 6y ago

> Now that I have a real job and manage people, it's "free as in $200/hour employee time instead." Richard Stallman used to make that much consulting on GCC for clients -- in 1980s/early 90s dollars. His commitment to software freedom did not compel him to wear sackcloth and live as a pauper.

woofie11 6y ago
I've always been curious as to what did compel him to wear a sackcloth and live as a pauper... He's also got the MacArthur back when a megabuck was real money.
- nescioquid 6y ago
  RMS told a story about the introduction of a new printer at the AI lab. The gist was that the manufacturer of the new printer would not release the source code (which was also under claimed copyright). At the time, this was a novelty; code was released so that people could modify it to work with the rest of the hardware they happen to have. The way RMS wrote of the event, I had the impression he felt shocked and betrayed. That was the inciting incident.
- bitwize 6y ago
  Stallman is a man whose idiosyncrasies intensified over the decades. I think his current lifestyle was motivated in part by huffing his own farts (figuratively speaking) and believing his own hype. He thinks he's the free software prophet he's been cast as by admirers, and is deliberately renouncing the ways of the world, much as prophets did in times of old, and hippies do to the present day.

nickelcitymario 6y ago

I'm not arguing against free software. I love free software. I'm not arguing against the various business models that surround free software, such as vendor support contracts. I'm arguing that GNU seems uncomfortable with what seems to me to be a self-evident truth: As soon as I grant you the freedom to use my software in whatever way you like, including for distribution, that software is effectively free-in-price moving forward. And that's not a bad thing! What I DO think is bad is going to great lengths to avoid accepting that truth, or to avoid talking about it. Free software is free in every sense of the word, no matter what GNU wants to believe.