3 ms·

All very good points and I don’t disagree with you. For me the issue is that FOSS is not a good model for generating the massive investment of resources needed

by simonh 4y ago

All very good points and I don’t disagree with you. For me the issue is that FOSS is not a good model for generating the massive investment of resources needed to solve many problems. Inkscape is great and if your problem space happens to be adequately addressed by it then fine. It’s not anywhere close to addressing many of the use cases solved by proprietary DTP though and the pace of development is glacial. So I appreciate FOSS and use it, and I’m very grateful for it. I just don’t buy the moral arguments. If someone wants to charge money for their software, and I think it’s worth it, I’ll pay for it. I don’t see how that’s anyone else’s business.

revertmean 4y ago
It's not surprising that Inkscape isn't "close to addressing many of the use cases solved by proprietary DTP", mainly because it's not really DTP software. It's Vector Graphics software. If you're looking for FOSS DTP, try Scribus.
- simonh 4y ago
  Doh, not the first time I've conflated those projects.
bkor 4y ago
> So I appreciate FOSS and use it, and I’m very grateful for it. I just don’t buy the moral arguments. If someone wants to charge money for their software FOSS isn't about it being free though. You've already stated the issue: > FOSS is not a good model for generating the massive investment of resources That doesn't mean FOSS is has as a moral to not charge for software.
einpoklum 4y ago
> If someone wants to charge money for their software, and I think it’s worth it, I’ll pay for it 1. No, you won't. Unless you think almost no software is worth it, or you're a billionaire. And most people don't have the money to be any of the software they would find useful (e.g. an office suite, an operating system). 2. The issue isn't whether you would pay for it or not. The issue - well, the issue for me anyway - is whether it is legitimate for the state to police the population to the extent of preventing the sharing of information, including software. I would say 'no'.
- simonh 4y ago
  >1. No, you won't. Unless you think almost no software is worth it, or you're a billionaire..... I think you'r interpreting what I said as buying all rights to the software outright or something. I'm not quite sure. I meant buy as in pay for the right to use it. >the issue for me anyway - is whether it is legitimate for the state to police the population to the extent of preventing the sharing of information, including software It's legitimate for the state to wield the powers delegated to it by the people. Our society (I mean the west generally but other societies too) have for a very long time decided that ownership rights can be legitimately exercised on some information in some circumstances, for periods of time. I think it's legitimate to extend those protections to software. I understand you disagree on that, but for me there's both a moral and an economic dimension to the question. Some forms of information should be shareable and in the open, where that is in the public interest, sure. Political speech for example. However where there's a creative or economic value, as with a novel or software, the fact is treating sharing it as a free speech right would be economically catastrophic. Investment in media production including software development, writing books, creating music, making movies and TV would utterly collapse. I know technically there are theoretically alternate funding models, and even a very few examples of successful projects, but the barriers to entry and risks of such models are in practice so severe that it would still be economically and culturally devastating. That's why you're not going to get public support for such a change.
  - einpoklum 4y ago
    > I meant buy as in pay for the right to use it. I meant the same thing. You don't have the money for it. Ok, maybe if you mortgaged your house, you might. > It's legitimate for the state to wield the powers delegated to it by the people. One can debate what powers have actually been legitimately delegated, if any (also depends on where in the world you live.) I argue people have certainly not delegated the power to government to prevent them from sharing copies of files and running those files. > Our society (I mean the west generally but other societies too) have for a very long time decided that ownership rights can be legitimately exercised on some information in some circumstances If you mean that Queen Anne decided to prop up the printers' guild, then yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne > Investment in ... software development This argument didn't hold much water before there was a decent infrastructure of free software, and by now it's completely bunk. > Investment in ... writing books, creating music, making movies and TV would utterly collapse. Not only would this not collapse, it would barely be impacted, seeing how people copy all of this stuff already - albeit not necessarily legally - and there are public libraries for books.
Beltiras 4y ago
IMO it's different for various types of softwares. I prefer my games closed-source and untamperable (by me). I prefer my operating systems open and scrutinized (althou I do have a gaming PC at home with Win10, I guess it's derivative of the closed-for-games-open-for-work thing). I can't work with the web systems I do without having access to the source. I don't care really what other people really do but I can't understand how the superior tech hasn't won out in the OS wars. I think Unix eventually will be the de-facto OS but it might take decades or centuries.

by simonh 4y ago

revertmean 4y ago

It's not surprising that Inkscape isn't "close to addressing many of the use cases solved by proprietary DTP", mainly because it's not really DTP software. It's Vector Graphics software. If you're looking for FOSS DTP, try Scribus.

simonh 4y ago
Doh, not the first time I've conflated those projects.

bkor 4y ago

> So I appreciate FOSS and use it, and I’m very grateful for it. I just don’t buy the moral arguments. If someone wants to charge money for their software FOSS isn't about it being free though. You've already stated the issue: > FOSS is not a good model for generating the massive investment of resources That doesn't mean FOSS is has as a moral to not charge for software.

einpoklum 4y ago

> If someone wants to charge money for their software, and I think it’s worth it, I’ll pay for it 1. No, you won't. Unless you think almost no software is worth it, or you're a billionaire. And most people don't have the money to be any of the software they would find useful (e.g. an office suite, an operating system). 2. The issue isn't whether you would pay for it or not. The issue - well, the issue for me anyway - is whether it is legitimate for the state to police the population to the extent of preventing the sharing of information, including software. I would say 'no'.

simonh 4y ago
>1. No, you won't. Unless you think almost no software is worth it, or you're a billionaire..... I think you'r interpreting what I said as buying all rights to the software outright or something. I'm not quite sure. I meant buy as in pay for the right to use it. >the issue for me anyway - is whether it is legitimate for the state to police the population to the extent of preventing the sharing of information, including software It's legitimate for the state to wield the powers delegated to it by the people. Our society (I mean the west generally but other societies too) have for a very long time decided that ownership rights can be legitimately exercised on some information in some circumstances, for periods of time. I think it's legitimate to extend those protections to software. I understand you disagree on that, but for me there's both a moral and an economic dimension to the question. Some forms of information should be shareable and in the open, where that is in the public interest, sure. Political speech for example. However where there's a creative or economic value, as with a novel or software, the fact is treating sharing it as a free speech right would be economically catastrophic. Investment in media production including software development, writing books, creating music, making movies and TV would utterly collapse. I know technically there are theoretically alternate funding models, and even a very few examples of successful projects, but the barriers to entry and risks of such models are in practice so severe that it would still be economically and culturally devastating. That's why you're not going to get public support for such a change.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  > I meant buy as in pay for the right to use it. I meant the same thing. You don't have the money for it. Ok, maybe if you mortgaged your house, you might. > It's legitimate for the state to wield the powers delegated to it by the people. One can debate what powers have actually been legitimately delegated, if any (also depends on where in the world you live.) I argue people have certainly not delegated the power to government to prevent them from sharing copies of files and running those files. > Our society (I mean the west generally but other societies too) have for a very long time decided that ownership rights can be legitimately exercised on some information in some circumstances If you mean that Queen Anne decided to prop up the printers' guild, then yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne > Investment in ... software development This argument didn't hold much water before there was a decent infrastructure of free software, and by now it's completely bunk. > Investment in ... writing books, creating music, making movies and TV would utterly collapse. Not only would this not collapse, it would barely be impacted, seeing how people copy all of this stuff already - albeit not necessarily legally - and there are public libraries for books.

Beltiras 4y ago

IMO it's different for various types of softwares. I prefer my games closed-source and untamperable (by me). I prefer my operating systems open and scrutinized (althou I do have a gaming PC at home with Win10, I guess it's derivative of the closed-for-games-open-for-work thing). I can't work with the web systems I do without having access to the source. I don't care really what other people really do but I can't understand how the superior tech hasn't won out in the OS wars. I think Unix eventually will be the de-facto OS but it might take decades or centuries.