3 ms·

Doesn't the reverse hold true too? If you rely on software you paid $0 for and it fails you, you got what you paid for.

by city41 5y ago

rboes 5y ago
Exactly, the companies should be blamed for using the software not the maintainer for not catching the bug on his free time.
mbrodersen 5y ago
Absolutely. However in reality if you give away your work for $0 then people value your work at $0 which means that they expect you to fix problems for $0. The problem is the maintainers giving away their work for $0. OSS is not about free (as in $0) it is about Open Source.
- em-bee 5y ago
  if this were true then FOSS would never have reached the popularity that it does now. FOSS users give a lot of valuable feedback that makes software better, and they don't generally expect their problems fixed for free. that mainly comes from greedy corporations that exploit free resources for their own gain. i give away my software for free to give back to the community that gives me tons of other free software and to get feedback and patches. if i were to sell it, that would just not happen because we would all compete on price. and because i can't tell the difference between individual FOSS users and large corporations when the software gets downloaded i can't force corporations to pay. nor can i make a license that forces payment from a select group because that would not longer be FOSS.
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    Honest question: How do you know that FOSS is popular because it is great and not because it cost $0? If FOSS cost the same as the equivalent commercial software would people pick it? I personally don't think so. There is a lot of really buggy crappy FOSS (and commercial) code out there. I don't think one is inherently better than another. It depends on the quality of the team building it.
    - em-bee 5y ago
      the key advantage of FOSS is not code quality or price but access to the source and the right to resell it. code quality on average should be on par with closed source software, if not a little bit better because developers know that their code will be public. if FOSS would cost the same, source access would still be a factor, whereas code quality would not really matter because it can't be inspected for closed source anyways. the downside would be a smaller pool of FOSS developers since less people would be able to afford to pay. but actually not that much. if a linux distribution cost the equivalent of a windows license, most people would still be able to afford it. the challenge is rather all the additional applications. for a more realistic comparison look at freeware. it costs the same as FOSS but the only really popular freeware out there was the netscape browser and what, winrar? (there are probably others, but i am not a windows user so i am not familiar with the ecosystem). but if cost was the factor, then freeware should be just as popular. FOSS is popular because it endures. i personally use several FOSS applications where the principal developers had left the project and others took over. any equivalent commercial of freeware application would be dead by now and i'd have to switch to something else.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > OSS is not about free (as in $0) it is about Open Source. FOSS has an 'F', which stands for "Free" in the sense that anyone can fork, modify, build and distribute the software. Without the 'F', you have code that is only open-source in the sense that you are allowed to read it. If you include the 'F', you have software that anyone can distribute, either for money or for $0. The market price is going to converge on $0. Plainly some devs are willing to work for nothing, whether out of passion, for the props, or because the software is important to them. So the market price of any software that isn't ringed with patent and copyright fences is going to tend towards $0. I favour a Universal Basic Income. Many people will leech; but many users of free software are leeching now. I believe people do productive work because they want to, not because they're paid mega-salaries. In fact, that's the only plausible explanation for free software. So make taxpayers finance a UBI. Admin costs are tiny (no eligibility checks, you just pay everyone). You can also get rid of most Social Security infrastructure. I think UBI is unpopular mainly because people hate the idea that the taxes on their income from work will be paid-out to people who don't care to work. That's understandable, but is it reasonable? Do they also complain about the number of people who are paid out of tax revenue just to check claimants' eligibility for SS support? I haven't heard that complaint.

Doesn't the reverse hold true too? If you rely on software you paid $0 for and it fails you, you got what you paid for.

by city41 5y ago

Doesn't the reverse hold true too? If you rely on software you paid $0 for and it fails you, you got what you paid for.

Exactly, the companies should be blamed for using the software not the maintainer for not catching the bug on his free time.

mbrodersen 5y ago

Absolutely. However in reality if you give away your work for $0 then people value your work at $0 which means that they expect you to fix problems for $0. The problem is the maintainers giving away their work for $0. OSS is not about free (as in $0) it is about Open Source.

em-bee 5y ago
if this were true then FOSS would never have reached the popularity that it does now. FOSS users give a lot of valuable feedback that makes software better, and they don't generally expect their problems fixed for free. that mainly comes from greedy corporations that exploit free resources for their own gain. i give away my software for free to give back to the community that gives me tons of other free software and to get feedback and patches. if i were to sell it, that would just not happen because we would all compete on price. and because i can't tell the difference between individual FOSS users and large corporations when the software gets downloaded i can't force corporations to pay. nor can i make a license that forces payment from a select group because that would not longer be FOSS.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Honest question: How do you know that FOSS is popular because it is great and not because it cost $0? If FOSS cost the same as the equivalent commercial software would people pick it? I personally don't think so. There is a lot of really buggy crappy FOSS (and commercial) code out there. I don't think one is inherently better than another. It depends on the quality of the team building it.
  - em-bee 5y ago
    the key advantage of FOSS is not code quality or price but access to the source and the right to resell it. code quality on average should be on par with closed source software, if not a little bit better because developers know that their code will be public. if FOSS would cost the same, source access would still be a factor, whereas code quality would not really matter because it can't be inspected for closed source anyways. the downside would be a smaller pool of FOSS developers since less people would be able to afford to pay. but actually not that much. if a linux distribution cost the equivalent of a windows license, most people would still be able to afford it. the challenge is rather all the additional applications. for a more realistic comparison look at freeware. it costs the same as FOSS but the only really popular freeware out there was the netscape browser and what, winrar? (there are probably others, but i am not a windows user so i am not familiar with the ecosystem). but if cost was the factor, then freeware should be just as popular. FOSS is popular because it endures. i personally use several FOSS applications where the principal developers had left the project and others took over. any equivalent commercial of freeware application would be dead by now and i'd have to switch to something else.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> OSS is not about free (as in $0) it is about Open Source. FOSS has an 'F', which stands for "Free" in the sense that anyone can fork, modify, build and distribute the software. Without the 'F', you have code that is only open-source in the sense that you are allowed to read it. If you include the 'F', you have software that anyone can distribute, either for money or for $0. The market price is going to converge on $0. Plainly some devs are willing to work for nothing, whether out of passion, for the props, or because the software is important to them. So the market price of any software that isn't ringed with patent and copyright fences is going to tend towards $0. I favour a Universal Basic Income. Many people will leech; but many users of free software are leeching now. I believe people do productive work because they want to, not because they're paid mega-salaries. In fact, that's the only plausible explanation for free software. So make taxpayers finance a UBI. Admin costs are tiny (no eligibility checks, you just pay everyone). You can also get rid of most Social Security infrastructure. I think UBI is unpopular mainly because people hate the idea that the taxes on their income from work will be paid-out to people who don't care to work. That's understandable, but is it reasonable? Do they also complain about the number of people who are paid out of tax revenue just to check claimants' eligibility for SS support? I haven't heard that complaint.