4 ms·

> The only sane, healthy, sustainable license is the "wacky" one you describe: individuals (and possibly even (very) small businesses) can use it for free. Ever

> The only sane, healthy, sustainable license is the "wacky" one you describe: individuals (and possibly even (very) small businesses) can use it for free. Everyone else needs to pony up. It's absurd that a ton of the software allowing giant corporations to run day-to-day is not only created but ACTIVELY MAINTAINED by an individual or groups of individuals for free, as if they were running a soup kitchen. Microsoft, Amazon and Google are not homeless. They can, and should, pay the people that make the software that keeps them going. > "But if it's open source, couldn't they just fork it and keep using that for free?" Yes, but a. not legally, if the terms forbid it and b. They would now have to find a new group of people to maintain the code, after just creating a bunch of ill-will in everyone in that space. In the end nothing is absolute: you can always just pirate closed-source commercial software too. But doing so has serious negative consequences. This is neither free nor open by either the OSI or the FSF's definitions. The real problem is that there is a fundamental crisis at the intersection of capitalism and human freedom/autonomy that may be impossible to resolve.

dabockster 5y ago
> This is neither free nor open by either the OSI or the FSF's definitions. In the famous words of Peter Griffin, "OH MY GOD WHO THE [expletive] CARES?!!" If someone isn't being paid for their work, then any version of OSS isn't really sustainable long term.
- apocalypstyx 5y ago
  > In the famous words of Peter Griffin, "OH MY GOD WHO THE [expletive] CARES?!!" The definitions of these terms have existed for decades. Trying to confuse or conflate them is just a slight of hand to generally disingenuous ends. Very little stops people from selling products under whatever terms they want. If they are honest, they can call their product what it is: proprietary. Otherwise it is just using the term 'open' to virtue signal. So 'open' becomes the new 'green'. > If someone isn't being paid for their work, then any version of OSS isn't really sustainable long term. Exactly my point. FOSS (for the most part) can't achieve financial viability in the current economic system (along with several other things). Electronics are integral to contemporary existence in most of the world. Without full control over their tools, human beings cannot be free/autonomous.
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    >Without full control over their tools, human beings cannot be free/autonomous. this assumes humans want to be free/autonomous. modern society already hunts and provides power/water/shelter to most of the middle class and above populace. How many truly want that full control over their resources to begin with?
    - apocalypstyx 5y ago
      Yes, in general humans often do everything they can to escape from freedom. Or, as the serpent said to Eve: "Here's Looking at You, Kid."
      - johnnyanmac 5y ago
        you force goodwill onto humans and you push them to the serpent even faster. The whole topic here is based on making people do more work for less rewards, after all. More work billionaires benefit most from.
- rodgerd 5y ago
  To double-down on that, rms noted that he doesn't think that developers "should be able to eat sushi every day". Which is both pretty rich coming from a guy who lived for free at a university while enjoying a million dollar grant but, more importantly, suggests that the view of the FSF on how a programmer should live, and the view of how programmers think they should live don't have a lot of overlap.

dabockster 5y ago

> This is neither free nor open by either the OSI or the FSF's definitions. In the famous words of Peter Griffin, "OH MY GOD WHO THE [expletive] CARES?!!" If someone isn't being paid for their work, then any version of OSS isn't really sustainable long term.

apocalypstyx 5y ago
> In the famous words of Peter Griffin, "OH MY GOD WHO THE [expletive] CARES?!!" The definitions of these terms have existed for decades. Trying to confuse or conflate them is just a slight of hand to generally disingenuous ends. Very little stops people from selling products under whatever terms they want. If they are honest, they can call their product what it is: proprietary. Otherwise it is just using the term 'open' to virtue signal. So 'open' becomes the new 'green'. > If someone isn't being paid for their work, then any version of OSS isn't really sustainable long term. Exactly my point. FOSS (for the most part) can't achieve financial viability in the current economic system (along with several other things). Electronics are integral to contemporary existence in most of the world. Without full control over their tools, human beings cannot be free/autonomous.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  >Without full control over their tools, human beings cannot be free/autonomous. this assumes humans want to be free/autonomous. modern society already hunts and provides power/water/shelter to most of the middle class and above populace. How many truly want that full control over their resources to begin with?
  - apocalypstyx 5y ago
    Yes, in general humans often do everything they can to escape from freedom. Or, as the serpent said to Eve: "Here's Looking at You, Kid."
    - johnnyanmac 5y ago
      you force goodwill onto humans and you push them to the serpent even faster. The whole topic here is based on making people do more work for less rewards, after all. More work billionaires benefit most from.
rodgerd 5y ago
To double-down on that, rms noted that he doesn't think that developers "should be able to eat sushi every day". Which is both pretty rich coming from a guy who lived for free at a university while enjoying a million dollar grant but, more importantly, suggests that the view of the FSF on how a programmer should live, and the view of how programmers think they should live don't have a lot of overlap.