3 ms·

> 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

> 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 4y 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?