4 ms·

I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. Food is required f

I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. Food is required for a healthy society but would anyone here advocate for farmers to give away all of their produce for free? Text-tiles are necessary for society but would you advocate that clothing be provided by the creators free of charge? The only thing different about software is that little to no physical resources are required as a prerequisite to its production, but an individuals time and energy is. A world in which no one was paid to write software would be a world with much worse offerings than what we currently have and would be a net loss for humanity.

kazinator 5y ago
> People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. But, but, ... Vanced is free-as-in-beer software that prevents Google getting ad revenue for their product/service.
- xvector 5y ago
  Google is not losing any appreciable amount of money to Vanced.
  - wiseowise 5y ago
    And that justifies its existence?
tjader 5y ago
I think a more apt comparison would be requiring farmers to make their farming techniques public, not giving away the food they farmed.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Sadly it's easier to copy an app than it is to copy a potato.
margalabargala 5y ago
You seem to be under the impression that permissively licensed software is unable to be sold, nor developers financially compensated. This is not the case. There are plenty of successful software companies whose offerings are not proprietary, yet manage to pay their developers well. Example products: - MongoDB - Red Hat - Docker - Elastic Search - Vagrant
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  I don't know for MongoDB and Vagrant, but Docker and Elastic Search seem to me to be painted into a corner because of the non proprietary part of their business. Seeing them succeed up to that point is already an incredible feat, and perhaps they will find a way to turn around with a bright future ahead, but at this point I wouldn't give them as clear examples of success of the business model. Red Hat is IBM, so I'm not sure it fits in the list.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  I agree with your point, but you picked stunningly bad examples. MongoDB and ElasticSearch are both fauxpen source, and Vagrant and Docker are both open core. The only one on your list that's really open source is Red Hat. Better examples would be Nextcloud and Grafana.
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    I agree the SSPL means Mongo and Elastic are not free software, but they are open source, and I would not consider them proprietary.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      The SSPL is not open source: https://opensource.org/node/1099 https://opensource.org/node/1099
      - margalabargala 5y ago
        You're right, sorry, I should have said source available.
Raineer 5y ago
Open-source has nothing to do with preventing people from making money. This is like a Microsoft argument from the 90s.
wiseowise 5y ago
As if you can't make money off a libre software.
rakoo 5y ago
Just to understand where I'm coming from, I'm actually a proponent of all production being socialized so that people do not need to spend their life working just to live. Farmers would give their produce for free because all their needs would be met for free. But that's another debate. Libre Software can totally be funded, through individual donations or through public funding; in fact, because Libre Software is a common, it is only normal that time spent improving them should be time paid by the entire society. I see no problem with the idea of taking from private property to further common property.
- MathCodeLove 5y ago
  I've heard people who have similar beliefs to yours and IME they've never been able to rationalize what their society would actually look like and how we could maintain the same quality of life as we have today. Given that HN is a higher quality social media platform than most, maybe today that can change. Would you mind answering a few questions: 1. Who does the hard/dirty jobs in this society? Farming being one. But also construction, sewage, trash, ad inifitum. There are a lot of undesirable jobs and while maybe some people would be willing, I doubt our needs could be met when the same individuals could just work an easier job for the same reward. 2. How are "needs" defined? Food, shelter, clothing. Then what? Electricity? Internet? Smartphones? Gaming consoles/PC's? Games to play on those? Music? Memory foam mattresses? Etc. If all of these aren't needs, then how would individuals with varying interests actually choose what they want to own? 3. What are the incentives to advance amd become highly skilled? Take doctors. Some are really passionate about what they do. Most may be a little passionate, but are mainly just intelligent people drawn by the money and prestige. Assuming medical school and university still exists, for what purpose would someone go through that pipeline when they could do something far easier?
  - approxim8ion 5y ago
    Regarding point 1, how is "the people who we force to" an acceptable answer to this? Because that's exactly what happens now. No one wants to work hard, dirty jobs, but there is a societal pressure upon them to, and enough inertia to maintain the status quo that keeps a majority of them where they are.
Mindwipe 5y ago
> I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. Vanced is literally a cracked version of Google's software though, to remove all the revenue checks.

kazinator 5y ago

> People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. But, but, ... Vanced is free-as-in-beer software that prevents Google getting ad revenue for their product/service.

xvector 5y ago
Google is not losing any appreciable amount of money to Vanced.
- wiseowise 5y ago
  And that justifies its existence?

tjader 5y ago

I think a more apt comparison would be requiring farmers to make their farming techniques public, not giving away the food they farmed.

rocqua 5y ago
Sadly it's easier to copy an app than it is to copy a potato.

margalabargala 5y ago

You seem to be under the impression that permissively licensed software is unable to be sold, nor developers financially compensated. This is not the case. There are plenty of successful software companies whose offerings are not proprietary, yet manage to pay their developers well. Example products: - MongoDB - Red Hat - Docker - Elastic Search - Vagrant

makeitdouble 5y ago
I don't know for MongoDB and Vagrant, but Docker and Elastic Search seem to me to be painted into a corner because of the non proprietary part of their business. Seeing them succeed up to that point is already an incredible feat, and perhaps they will find a way to turn around with a bright future ahead, but at this point I wouldn't give them as clear examples of success of the business model. Red Hat is IBM, so I'm not sure it fits in the list.
josephcsible 5y ago
I agree with your point, but you picked stunningly bad examples. MongoDB and ElasticSearch are both fauxpen source, and Vagrant and Docker are both open core. The only one on your list that's really open source is Red Hat. Better examples would be Nextcloud and Grafana.
- margalabargala 5y ago
  I agree the SSPL means Mongo and Elastic are not free software, but they are open source, and I would not consider them proprietary.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The SSPL is not open source: https://opensource.org/node/1099 https://opensource.org/node/1099
    - margalabargala 5y ago
      You're right, sorry, I should have said source available.

Raineer 5y ago

Open-source has nothing to do with preventing people from making money. This is like a Microsoft argument from the 90s.

wiseowise 5y ago

As if you can't make money off a libre software.

rakoo 5y ago

Just to understand where I'm coming from, I'm actually a proponent of all production being socialized so that people do not need to spend their life working just to live. Farmers would give their produce for free because all their needs would be met for free. But that's another debate. Libre Software can totally be funded, through individual donations or through public funding; in fact, because Libre Software is a common, it is only normal that time spent improving them should be time paid by the entire society. I see no problem with the idea of taking from private property to further common property.

MathCodeLove 5y ago
I've heard people who have similar beliefs to yours and IME they've never been able to rationalize what their society would actually look like and how we could maintain the same quality of life as we have today. Given that HN is a higher quality social media platform than most, maybe today that can change. Would you mind answering a few questions: 1. Who does the hard/dirty jobs in this society? Farming being one. But also construction, sewage, trash, ad inifitum. There are a lot of undesirable jobs and while maybe some people would be willing, I doubt our needs could be met when the same individuals could just work an easier job for the same reward. 2. How are "needs" defined? Food, shelter, clothing. Then what? Electricity? Internet? Smartphones? Gaming consoles/PC's? Games to play on those? Music? Memory foam mattresses? Etc. If all of these aren't needs, then how would individuals with varying interests actually choose what they want to own? 3. What are the incentives to advance amd become highly skilled? Take doctors. Some are really passionate about what they do. Most may be a little passionate, but are mainly just intelligent people drawn by the money and prestige. Assuming medical school and university still exists, for what purpose would someone go through that pipeline when they could do something far easier?
- approxim8ion 5y ago
  Regarding point 1, how is "the people who we force to" an acceptable answer to this? Because that's exactly what happens now. No one wants to work hard, dirty jobs, but there is a societal pressure upon them to, and enough inertia to maintain the status quo that keeps a majority of them where they are.

Mindwipe 5y ago

> I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. Vanced is literally a cracked version of Google's software though, to remove all the revenue checks.