5 ms·

Yes, well since many companies (notably Google and probably Amazon, too) have absolute bans on AGPL software, I don't think it's working out. The "religion" of

Yes, well since many companies (notably Google and probably Amazon, too) have absolute bans on AGPL software, I don't think it's working out. The "religion" of open source is wonky. The truth is that the real value of software is nothing because it costs nothing to reproduce. The real value of software is in people who host it for you, configure it for you, and support you in using it. That, you can charge for. This is the basis of Red Hat's business model which isn't the least bit snarky and, demonstrably, worth paying for.

Symbiote 5y ago
You have just assigned zero or near-zero value to software, art (prints etc), music recordings, video recordings, books, sheet music, etc. Most copyrighted works. Plenty of companies make money selling software, and purchasing hosting and support is often not possible or not required. Your own company even does this, I see you sell a lifetime license to the desktop version.
- mimixco 5y ago
  Software was originally free. It was necessary to use the machines so it was supplied by their makers. (I worked at IBM when this began to change.) It was also all open source before that went away in favor of closed and proprietary licenses, which customers pushed back on greatly. While some companies do make money selling software, they're fewer and further between than ever. Most of the money in the software business is in hosting, service, support, or advertising. The biggest players in our industry make more money from that stuff than from selling licenses. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon are all software-based businesses but software licenses aren't their source of revenue. The vast majority of software is worth nothing. Statistically, most computer programs will only be used by one person -- the person who wrote them. There are millions of GitHub repos full of software with absolutely zero monetary value, as evidenced by the fact that no one pays for it. A tiny, tiny fraction of software programs reach "escape velocity" and become important enough to pay for, and to pay people to work on. This is definitely the exception and not the norm. None of this is a condemnation of software or other copyrighted works. I'm a published author and artist as well as a software developer and I definitely get it. As for our desktop software, we charge for the fact that we packaged it into the desktop version. That's human work and it was quite difficult. If you don't need that, you can get (and setup) an almost identical product for free.

Symbiote 5y ago

You have just assigned zero or near-zero value to software, art (prints etc), music recordings, video recordings, books, sheet music, etc. Most copyrighted works. Plenty of companies make money selling software, and purchasing hosting and support is often not possible or not required. Your own company even does this, I see you sell a lifetime license to the desktop version.

mimixco 5y ago
Software was originally free. It was necessary to use the machines so it was supplied by their makers. (I worked at IBM when this began to change.) It was also all open source before that went away in favor of closed and proprietary licenses, which customers pushed back on greatly. While some companies do make money selling software, they're fewer and further between than ever. Most of the money in the software business is in hosting, service, support, or advertising. The biggest players in our industry make more money from that stuff than from selling licenses. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon are all software-based businesses but software licenses aren't their source of revenue. The vast majority of software is worth nothing. Statistically, most computer programs will only be used by one person -- the person who wrote them. There are millions of GitHub repos full of software with absolutely zero monetary value, as evidenced by the fact that no one pays for it. A tiny, tiny fraction of software programs reach "escape velocity" and become important enough to pay for, and to pay people to work on. This is definitely the exception and not the norm. None of this is a condemnation of software or other copyrighted works. I'm a published author and artist as well as a software developer and I definitely get it. As for our desktop software, we charge for the fact that we packaged it into the desktop version. That's human work and it was quite difficult. If you don't need that, you can get (and setup) an almost identical product for free.