3 ms·

> I would really like to live in a world when open source doesn't necessarily mean gratis or direct copy by a competitor Open source does not mean "gratis". Se

by q-big 5y ago

> I would really like to live in a world when open source doesn't necessarily mean gratis or direct copy by a competitor Open source does not mean "gratis". See for example this historic order form of software offered by the Free Software Foundation: > https://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/gnu/bull/17/gnu_bulletin_9401_30.html https://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/gnu/bull/17/gnu_bulletin_940... Open source just implies that by economic principles, the market price for the respective software will soon converge to the marginal cost. Just to give another example how open source software might have a price: start a Kickstarter campaign which will release a software product as open source as soon as, say, 100,000 USD or EUR is reached.

forgetfulness 5y ago
> Open source does not mean "gratis". See for example this historic order form of software offered by the Free Software Foundation: That's the example that's been shown for the last 30 years, Richard Stallman making a buck selling copies of Emacs and GCC during a period in the 80s and early 90s, when infrastructure constraints made it cheaper, or feasible in the first place, for the user to order software to be shipped on physical media rather than downloading it from the net. Either there are no more examples of businesses that have lived off selling copies of Free desktop software, or the FSF really doesn't care enough to look for one in the last 20 years.
- ensignavenger 5y ago
  Other examples of entirely open source projects that have paid, full time developers include all of RedHat, Godot, Blender, Linux, Python, Django... the list is very long.
  - forgetfulness 5y ago
    Yes but we're talking specifically of Software targeted at consumers or niche professionals, what "Independent Software Vendors" sell, it's good that some infrastructure projects get corporate sponsorship and that RedHat funnels some money from its server software business to the Linux desktop, but this is, rather noticeably, not spurring development of Linux desktop applications now, or last year, or in the ten years prior.
adwn 5y ago
> Open source does not mean "gratis". See for example this historic order form of software offered by the Free Software Foundation: If the best example in support of your thesis is a "historic order form" (not even a revenue statement!) from 30 years ago, way before the ubiquitous availability of high-speed Internet, then you might want to rethink your position.
- q-big 5y ago
  > If the best example in support of your thesis is a "historic order form" That is why I gave a second example.
  - alpaca128 5y ago
    Your second example with Kickstarter stretch goals doesn't change much imho, it's a one-time payment which won't really work long-term for a company, and after the release it's the same situation again. In the end that's still not payment for the software itself or the license to use it, but for development with the typical risk of investment.
    - q-big 5y ago
      > it's a one-time payment The claim was about open source being gratis: > I would really like to live in a world when open source doesn't necessarily mean gratis and not about being able to enforce recurring payments.
      - forgetfulness 5y ago
        Selling units of something is different from one-time patronage. There's no way you'll employ more than yourself by doing 100k fund raisers for your work, and Software often requires teams. If this were economically viable, it'd be happening often.

by q-big 5y ago

forgetfulness 5y ago

> Open source does not mean "gratis". See for example this historic order form of software offered by the Free Software Foundation: That's the example that's been shown for the last 30 years, Richard Stallman making a buck selling copies of Emacs and GCC during a period in the 80s and early 90s, when infrastructure constraints made it cheaper, or feasible in the first place, for the user to order software to be shipped on physical media rather than downloading it from the net. Either there are no more examples of businesses that have lived off selling copies of Free desktop software, or the FSF really doesn't care enough to look for one in the last 20 years.

ensignavenger 5y ago
Other examples of entirely open source projects that have paid, full time developers include all of RedHat, Godot, Blender, Linux, Python, Django... the list is very long.
- forgetfulness 5y ago
  Yes but we're talking specifically of Software targeted at consumers or niche professionals, what "Independent Software Vendors" sell, it's good that some infrastructure projects get corporate sponsorship and that RedHat funnels some money from its server software business to the Linux desktop, but this is, rather noticeably, not spurring development of Linux desktop applications now, or last year, or in the ten years prior.

adwn 5y ago

> Open source does not mean "gratis". See for example this historic order form of software offered by the Free Software Foundation: If the best example in support of your thesis is a "historic order form" (not even a revenue statement!) from 30 years ago, way before the ubiquitous availability of high-speed Internet, then you might want to rethink your position.

q-big 5y ago
> If the best example in support of your thesis is a "historic order form" That is why I gave a second example.
- alpaca128 5y ago
  Your second example with Kickstarter stretch goals doesn't change much imho, it's a one-time payment which won't really work long-term for a company, and after the release it's the same situation again. In the end that's still not payment for the software itself or the license to use it, but for development with the typical risk of investment.
  - q-big 5y ago
    > it's a one-time payment The claim was about open source being gratis: > I would really like to live in a world when open source doesn't necessarily mean gratis and not about being able to enforce recurring payments.
    - forgetfulness 5y ago
      Selling units of something is different from one-time patronage. There's no way you'll employ more than yourself by doing 100k fund raisers for your work, and Software often requires teams. If this were economically viable, it'd be happening often.