3 ms·

Exactly this. I love and support open source[1], but I don’t support all software being “free of cost”. [1] Not the OSI definition of it.

winter_blue 6y ago
Do people actually support all software being free? Note that I said above: > but I don’t support all software being “free of cost” Does anyone really support all software being free? That means developers would have to live like saints / monks, with donations to support themselves (and forgo the the 250k income that's become the standard/median in Silicon Valley today...).
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  Well, there are other ways to get income while producing software than selling the software. You can be a university professor. You can be funded by grants. You can have a job working for a non-software company that lets you produce free software for that company's use that you can also give away, while they keep paying your salary. Things like that were how open source software has been historically produced mostly, right? Heck, there could be a Universal Basic Income, and someone could choose to write the software they want while getting it. Yeah, none of these would be sufficient to produce all the software that is "needed" or wanted. So, as long as there are people willing to pay for software they can't get for free, all software won't be free. I support the idea of all software being free, including social changes that would be necessary for that to be realistic, such as serious alterations to capitalism.
  - winter_blue 6y ago
    > You can be a university professor. You can be funded by grants. I actually have a bunch of friends that I went to college with, who all have PhDs now. Getting a tenure track position is nearly impossible. Also, grants are extremely hard to get. They’re all working either: (1) as postdocs (where there is a grant funding it), or worse (2) looking for a postdoctoral or tenure-track position (or have lost a postdoc position because the grant ran out). These things are incredibly hard to do. > You can have a job working for a non-software company that lets you produce free software for that company's use that you can also give away, while they keep paying your salary. If the plan is abolish proprietary software, there’s not gonna be a lot of companies making money selling software, ie making software. So do you mean some hardware company that needs to write some specific software for its needs? I suppose there could be a world where most/all software is free (in GNU terms), but you’d end up with almost everything becoming web-based SaaS, and that would be the commercial model. (I mean, we’re already pretty close to that.) Universal basic income requires a tax base of highly productive, and high earning taxpayers. Just look at the economic contribution of software and technology companies. If the government were to take a wrecking ball to that literal economic powerhouse, how significantly would the tax base shrink by?
teddyh 6y ago
> I don’t support all software being “free of cost”. Stallman and the FSF agree with you; selling software is perfectly OK: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling
- winter_blue 6y ago
  From your link: > With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. The type of “selling” that GNU is proposing here is exactly the same as asking for donations (and is a misuse of the word “sell”). Since people can resdistribute the software without limit (and someone is sure to put it up on internet), you “charging” for it is the same as asking for donations.
  - teddyh 6y ago
    If you don’t like that kind of selling, maybe this is more to your liking? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions

winter_blue 6y ago

Do people actually support all software being free? Note that I said above: > but I don’t support all software being “free of cost” Does anyone really support all software being free? That means developers would have to live like saints / monks, with donations to support themselves (and forgo the the 250k income that's become the standard/median in Silicon Valley today...).

jrochkind1 6y ago
Well, there are other ways to get income while producing software than selling the software. You can be a university professor. You can be funded by grants. You can have a job working for a non-software company that lets you produce free software for that company's use that you can also give away, while they keep paying your salary. Things like that were how open source software has been historically produced mostly, right? Heck, there could be a Universal Basic Income, and someone could choose to write the software they want while getting it. Yeah, none of these would be sufficient to produce all the software that is "needed" or wanted. So, as long as there are people willing to pay for software they can't get for free, all software won't be free. I support the idea of all software being free, including social changes that would be necessary for that to be realistic, such as serious alterations to capitalism.
- winter_blue 6y ago
  > You can be a university professor. You can be funded by grants. I actually have a bunch of friends that I went to college with, who all have PhDs now. Getting a tenure track position is nearly impossible. Also, grants are extremely hard to get. They’re all working either: (1) as postdocs (where there is a grant funding it), or worse (2) looking for a postdoctoral or tenure-track position (or have lost a postdoc position because the grant ran out). These things are incredibly hard to do. > You can have a job working for a non-software company that lets you produce free software for that company's use that you can also give away, while they keep paying your salary. If the plan is abolish proprietary software, there’s not gonna be a lot of companies making money selling software, ie making software. So do you mean some hardware company that needs to write some specific software for its needs? I suppose there could be a world where most/all software is free (in GNU terms), but you’d end up with almost everything becoming web-based SaaS, and that would be the commercial model. (I mean, we’re already pretty close to that.) Universal basic income requires a tax base of highly productive, and high earning taxpayers. Just look at the economic contribution of software and technology companies. If the government were to take a wrecking ball to that literal economic powerhouse, how significantly would the tax base shrink by?

teddyh 6y ago

> I don’t support all software being “free of cost”. Stallman and the FSF agree with you; selling software is perfectly OK: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling

winter_blue 6y ago
From your link: > With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. The type of “selling” that GNU is proposing here is exactly the same as asking for donations (and is a misuse of the word “sell”). Since people can resdistribute the software without limit (and someone is sure to put it up on internet), you “charging” for it is the same as asking for donations.
- teddyh 6y ago
  If you don’t like that kind of selling, maybe this is more to your liking? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions