3 ms·

your explanation as to why the book isn't 'free or open source' is an explanation that you need money to continue the endeavor while living life successfully.

by serf 6y ago

your explanation as to why the book isn't 'free or open source' is an explanation that you need money to continue the endeavor while living life successfully. This makes one feel like a broken record, but this compels me to mention that there are major differences between 'gratis' and 'libre'.[0] Open-source/free and for-profit are not at odds with each other. They describe different ideas. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre

glangdale 6y ago
This gets explained a lot; what doesn't get explained as much is how folks can continue to make money for their work in the "libre" world. It's certainly possible - dual licensing, services, premium editions, physical books, etc., and it's not a bad thing. But my guess is that a "libre" version of this guy's book would rapidly turn into a "gratis" version of it too - a "good enough" PDF would get passed around and ultimately be the main way most people would see his stuff.
- glangdale 6y ago
  I might add that 90% of the situations where I've thought about this in a software context as well have been "libre" -> "gratis" more or less inevitably. Again, there are exceptions, but it's surprising how many people are happy to take something and run with it, no support, no "enhanced edition", no training, etc.
  - hurflmurfl 6y ago
    I wouldn't say it's surprising at all.
- oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
  Do we actually know this, for sure? Obviously, it seems like common sense, but there's a similar argument about piracy, and an opposing position that piracy never managed to kill the industries it was apparently a threat to — if anything (so the argument goes), it might have even boosted them. I've bought physical books in the past, even though they were open source. I might also spend money on a digital open source book for various reasons, some of which you mention. It's likely that an author won't make as much direct income from an open-sourced book, but they might make 'enough', even before you consider indirect income.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Do we actually know this, for sure? Pretty much, yes.
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  Are you familiar with the book, Grokking Bitcoin?

by serf 6y ago

glangdale 6y ago

This gets explained a lot; what doesn't get explained as much is how folks can continue to make money for their work in the "libre" world. It's certainly possible - dual licensing, services, premium editions, physical books, etc., and it's not a bad thing. But my guess is that a "libre" version of this guy's book would rapidly turn into a "gratis" version of it too - a "good enough" PDF would get passed around and ultimately be the main way most people would see his stuff.

glangdale 6y ago
I might add that 90% of the situations where I've thought about this in a software context as well have been "libre" -> "gratis" more or less inevitably. Again, there are exceptions, but it's surprising how many people are happy to take something and run with it, no support, no "enhanced edition", no training, etc.
- hurflmurfl 6y ago
  I wouldn't say it's surprising at all.
oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
Do we actually know this, for sure? Obviously, it seems like common sense, but there's a similar argument about piracy, and an opposing position that piracy never managed to kill the industries it was apparently a threat to — if anything (so the argument goes), it might have even boosted them. I've bought physical books in the past, even though they were open source. I might also spend money on a digital open source book for various reasons, some of which you mention. It's likely that an author won't make as much direct income from an open-sourced book, but they might make 'enough', even before you consider indirect income.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Do we actually know this, for sure? Pretty much, yes.
AlchemistCamp 6y ago
Are you familiar with the book, Grokking Bitcoin?