3 ms·

The reads like a communist manifesto. Until we live in a post scarcity society it’s unfair to suggest people should be denied profits from their work.

generalizations 6y ago
This looks like the thesis of the article: > Our solution to this problem is developing free software and rejecting proprietary software. Free software means that you, as a user, have four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program as you wish, (1) to study and change the source code so it does what you wish, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to redistribute copies of your modified versions. I'm not seeing how anyone is being denied profits. This seems focused on the user, and the choices the user should make, rather than the provider of the SaaS and what they ought or ought not to receive. Maybe I missed something? > Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
crazypython 6y ago
Or you could use local software– Dictionary.app instead of the dictionary on Google. This article barely argues for free software. It's the Parler-AWS issue.
throwaway-8-523 6y ago
> “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html This is also explained in the article, including a link to the page that defines "free" in this context.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
This is a misconception of what Free Software means. I don't have a source to hand, but if I recall correctly, Stallman used to sell discs containing only Free Software, and made a profit doing so. That's in keeping with Free Software principles, although the Internet has mostly put an end to the practice (with exceptions like Red Hat). Stallman was also paid good money to implement enhancements to the GCC compiler suite. It's also possible to accept donations for a Free Software project, or to offer to host the software as a paid service, or to charge for support (quite common in the GNU/Linux world, also with LibreOffice). Lastly, you can find a salaried job writing Free Software, such as Linux kernel development. As someone already pointed out (unfortunately from a throwaway account), Free Software isn't against profit. They're pretty upfront about this. It's true that it can be very challenging to monetize Free Software, but that's an unfortunate harsh reality, not a tenet of the philosophy. Incidentally this topic turned up yesterday over at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25946073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25946073

generalizations 6y ago

This looks like the thesis of the article: > Our solution to this problem is developing free software and rejecting proprietary software. Free software means that you, as a user, have four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program as you wish, (1) to study and change the source code so it does what you wish, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to redistribute copies of your modified versions. I'm not seeing how anyone is being denied profits. This seems focused on the user, and the choices the user should make, rather than the provider of the SaaS and what they ought or ought not to receive. Maybe I missed something? > Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

crazypython 6y ago

Or you could use local software– Dictionary.app instead of the dictionary on Google. This article barely argues for free software. It's the Parler-AWS issue.

throwaway-8-523 6y ago

> “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html This is also explained in the article, including a link to the page that defines "free" in this context.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

This is a misconception of what Free Software means. I don't have a source to hand, but if I recall correctly, Stallman used to sell discs containing only Free Software, and made a profit doing so. That's in keeping with Free Software principles, although the Internet has mostly put an end to the practice (with exceptions like Red Hat). Stallman was also paid good money to implement enhancements to the GCC compiler suite. It's also possible to accept donations for a Free Software project, or to offer to host the software as a paid service, or to charge for support (quite common in the GNU/Linux world, also with LibreOffice). Lastly, you can find a salaried job writing Free Software, such as Linux kernel development. As someone already pointed out (unfortunately from a throwaway account), Free Software isn't against profit. They're pretty upfront about this. It's true that it can be very challenging to monetize Free Software, but that's an unfortunate harsh reality, not a tenet of the philosophy. Incidentally this topic turned up yesterday over at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25946073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25946073