4 ms·

"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others" How is that not always going to end up being "free of charge"? Someone is always going to end up r

"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others" How is that not always going to end up being "free of charge"? Someone is always going to end up redistributing it without charge.

panta 5y ago
Yes, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of building a business around the production of free software and even around its distribution.
agalunar 5y ago
Yes, someone will redistribute it without charge, but there are still ways you can make money from libre software: • selling physical media (e.g. an installation disk or drive) • selling downloads from a trusted, official server (with the bandwidth to serve a global audience) • selling support • asking for donations • adopting a patreon model (if you want so-and-such feature or modification, please fund me so that I can do so) and so on. Admittedly, it is more difficult to make money from libre software than non-libre software, but that seems to be a consequence of the law allowing non-libre software to be sold as it is (i.e. treating software like other copyrightable material). "It's more difficult to make money from libre software" is essentially "it's more difficult to make money when you don't threaten to sue people for inspecting, modifying, or exercising ownership of the tools they use". We could similarly say "it's easier to make money when you can threaten people at gunpoint", which would simply be true! were it not for society imposing a high price (imprisonment) for doing so.
lelanthran 5y ago
> "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others" > > How is that not always going to end up being "free of charge"? Someone is always going to end up redistributing it without charge. If you redistribute it. Doesn't mean you cannot sell your own software and allow the user to have the source code. The GPL allows the end-user to redistribute it, for free if they want, but it's essentially a non-supported, always behind version. If the end-user adds some nice functionality to the software AND they then redistribute it, then they are forced to provide the source for the changes they made, which allows you, as the vendor, to incorporate those changes into your product. The idea is that, for any piece of software, the entire community of users will have the ability to modify that software. After multiple iterations, even companies will get in on the act because they save money by contributing to, and using, the commons. The point of the free software movement is not to prevent companies from making money writing software (that's a side-effect, sure), it's to ensure that the end-users' freedom to change the software is guaranteed. Now you may argue that such a position, taken to its logical conclusion, will result in software developers never getting paid again. You may even be right. However that is not relevant to the movement's goals. Their goal is having a particular right for the end-user. Their goals does not include the well-being of the software developer. It is pointless to argue that the movement, if successful, will result in software development being a non-paid activity, because not only is that not a goal for the movement, it's not even a concern for them. Hence, the argument is irrelevant.
- gsinclair 5y ago
  > It is pointless to argue that the movement, if successful, will result in software development being a non-paid activity, because not only is that not a goal for the movement, it's not even a concern for them. Hence, the argument is irrelevant. That is incredibly false. It is always legitimate to argue implications.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > That is incredibly false. It is always legitimate to argue implications. It's not "incredibly false"; like everything else in life, it's "sometimes it depends". In this case, making a successful argument against free software based on a side-effect of the movement has little to no effect: 1. The movement doesn't care. It's of no concern to them, so at worst they'll ignore it, at best they'll suggest mitigations. They aren't going to stop their cause. 2. The developers of the free software don't care. Many of them are already paid well even though the movement has been around for most of their entire lifetimes, and for most of them their jobs already depend on free software. They aren't going to care about what the implications are because in the last 40 years there hasn't been any negatives for the clear majority of developers, while they currently depend on it. 3. The users of free software (which includes almost all developers alive today) care very much that free software continues being a thing. They depend on it. Doesn't matter how accurate your argument is, they'll ignore it too. So, once again, who is the target audience of any argument against free software? If all the audiences are going to mostly ignore it because it is against their best interests, why continue tilting at windmills?

"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others" How is that not always going to end up being "free of charge"? Someone is always going to end up redistributing it without charge.

panta 5y ago

Yes, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of building a business around the production of free software and even around its distribution.

agalunar 5y ago

Yes, someone will redistribute it without charge, but there are still ways you can make money from libre software: • selling physical media (e.g. an installation disk or drive) • selling downloads from a trusted, official server (with the bandwidth to serve a global audience) • selling support • asking for donations • adopting a patreon model (if you want so-and-such feature or modification, please fund me so that I can do so) and so on. Admittedly, it is more difficult to make money from libre software than non-libre software, but that seems to be a consequence of the law allowing non-libre software to be sold as it is (i.e. treating software like other copyrightable material). "It's more difficult to make money from libre software" is essentially "it's more difficult to make money when you don't threaten to sue people for inspecting, modifying, or exercising ownership of the tools they use". We could similarly say "it's easier to make money when you can threaten people at gunpoint", which would simply be true! were it not for society imposing a high price (imprisonment) for doing so.

lelanthran 5y ago

> "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others" > > How is that not always going to end up being "free of charge"? Someone is always going to end up redistributing it without charge. If you redistribute it. Doesn't mean you cannot sell your own software and allow the user to have the source code. The GPL allows the end-user to redistribute it, for free if they want, but it's essentially a non-supported, always behind version. If the end-user adds some nice functionality to the software AND they then redistribute it, then they are forced to provide the source for the changes they made, which allows you, as the vendor, to incorporate those changes into your product. The idea is that, for any piece of software, the entire community of users will have the ability to modify that software. After multiple iterations, even companies will get in on the act because they save money by contributing to, and using, the commons. The point of the free software movement is not to prevent companies from making money writing software (that's a side-effect, sure), it's to ensure that the end-users' freedom to change the software is guaranteed. Now you may argue that such a position, taken to its logical conclusion, will result in software developers never getting paid again. You may even be right. However that is not relevant to the movement's goals. Their goal is having a particular right for the end-user. Their goals does not include the well-being of the software developer. It is pointless to argue that the movement, if successful, will result in software development being a non-paid activity, because not only is that not a goal for the movement, it's not even a concern for them. Hence, the argument is irrelevant.

gsinclair 5y ago
> It is pointless to argue that the movement, if successful, will result in software development being a non-paid activity, because not only is that not a goal for the movement, it's not even a concern for them. Hence, the argument is irrelevant. That is incredibly false. It is always legitimate to argue implications.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > That is incredibly false. It is always legitimate to argue implications. It's not "incredibly false"; like everything else in life, it's "sometimes it depends". In this case, making a successful argument against free software based on a side-effect of the movement has little to no effect: 1. The movement doesn't care. It's of no concern to them, so at worst they'll ignore it, at best they'll suggest mitigations. They aren't going to stop their cause. 2. The developers of the free software don't care. Many of them are already paid well even though the movement has been around for most of their entire lifetimes, and for most of them their jobs already depend on free software. They aren't going to care about what the implications are because in the last 40 years there hasn't been any negatives for the clear majority of developers, while they currently depend on it. 3. The users of free software (which includes almost all developers alive today) care very much that free software continues being a thing. They depend on it. Doesn't matter how accurate your argument is, they'll ignore it too. So, once again, who is the target audience of any argument against free software? If all the audiences are going to mostly ignore it because it is against their best interests, why continue tilting at windmills?