6 ms·

> why do you care? Why wouldn't I care? What kind of person wouldn't like to make the world a better place for everybody? Free software makes this world better

> why do you care? Why wouldn't I care? What kind of person wouldn't like to make the world a better place for everybody? Free software makes this world better for everybody. > Why does it bother you that some people do not care about that, whatever their reason is? It doesn't bother me, I support personal freedom to use proprietary software. What I don't support is proprietary software itself. > Do you? People who can do that are the lucky ones. Right now, they are. But it doesn't have to be that way. This might sound idealistic, and it is, because free software is about freedom, which is in itself an ideal. I am quite aware that proprietary software is still widespread. That doesn't mean I can't believe in a future without it. > I wasn't even trying. Then, what's the point of us communicating in the first place?

rad_gruchalski 4y ago
> Then, what's the point of us communicating in the first place? Presenting a point of view alternative to yours. I’m not changing the world here.
rad_gruchalski 4y ago
I would like to understand one more thing regarding your point of view: do you find licenses prohibiting commercial use without a payment also immoral? As in, do you believe that all software should be source available, free to modify and distribute?
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  > do you find licenses prohibiting commercial use without a payment also immoral They are in contradiction with basic freedom to use the program for any purpose you wish, so yes. Imagine borrowing a hammer from a friend and having police knock on your door because you haven't paid the hammer making company a license fee.
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    But you do understand that even Red Hat has paid, licensed SKUs and the reason why Red Hat can support its “contribute and sell services” approach is partially because of their licensed products. You do understand that if your expectation for all proprietary products to disappear was to become true, you most likely rendered all software engineers to work for free. Because, let’s face it, who is going to pay for their time if there’s nothing to gain in return? With the hammer. Well, your friend bought the hammer. Someone paid for it. Who pays in your model?
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      > You do understand that if your expectation for all proprietary products to disappear was to become true, you most likely rendered all software engineers to work for free. Because, let’s face it, who is going to pay for their time if there’s nothing to gain in return? That is a fairly weak argument. Is there any reason why you consider the status quo to be the only way for software engineers to earn money? Is there really "nothing to gain" from software, unless we rent-seek per-user license fee? Even if that were true, I'd gladly trade software engineering salaries for getting rid of proprietary software. It might just be the case that software engineers are overpaid, and the money comes from mistreatment of users. > With the hammer. Well, your friend bought the hammer. Someone paid for it. Who pays in your model? Maybe my friend. Maybe my friend's friend. Maybe nobody. Maybe we all donated to the HammerSoft inc., it doesn't matter. What matters is we have the software and we have freedom to use it in any way we wish. If you're saying that software wouldn't exist without extracting money from per-user license fees, that's completely false, as proven by the large body of Free Software that already exists.
      - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
        > That is a fairly weak argument. Is there any reason why you consider the status quo to be the only way for software engineers to earn money? Is there really "nothing to gain" from software, unless we rent-seek per-user license fee? You act like I'm trying to convince you. I'm just asking. Services come to mind. But as I said, even a company you put here as an example of that model provides paid, licensed software. Support is another one. But software isn't equal software. Do you think software running on medical devices should be free and open source? Should the operator of a medical device have a freedom to download a fork from github, compile and run on a device? An airline running a fork of an ECU software? > Even if that were true, I'd gladly trade software engineering salaries for getting rid of proprietary software. It might just be the case that software engineers are overpaid, and the money comes from mistreatment of users. Okay, we are all rushing to provide you with the free software you demand because of your "freedom". What about the "freedom" of all the software people to make a living? At the end of the day if they have paid customers who see the value in their software-they voted with their wallet-why does it bother you? > Maybe my friend. Maybe my friend's friend. Maybe nobody. Maybe we all donated to the HammerSoft inc., it doesn't matter. What matters is we have the software and we have freedom to use it in any way we wish. But with a hammer, if you and your friend want to use a hammer at the same time, you have to have two hammers. If both of you have only one hammer, only one of you can use it at a time. I get that you can borrow the hammer to your fiend without paying a license fee. But when you borrow your hammer, you can't use it.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago

> Then, what's the point of us communicating in the first place? Presenting a point of view alternative to yours. I’m not changing the world here.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago

I would like to understand one more thing regarding your point of view: do you find licenses prohibiting commercial use without a payment also immoral? As in, do you believe that all software should be source available, free to modify and distribute?

paskozdilar 4y ago
> do you find licenses prohibiting commercial use without a payment also immoral They are in contradiction with basic freedom to use the program for any purpose you wish, so yes. Imagine borrowing a hammer from a friend and having police knock on your door because you haven't paid the hammer making company a license fee.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  But you do understand that even Red Hat has paid, licensed SKUs and the reason why Red Hat can support its “contribute and sell services” approach is partially because of their licensed products. You do understand that if your expectation for all proprietary products to disappear was to become true, you most likely rendered all software engineers to work for free. Because, let’s face it, who is going to pay for their time if there’s nothing to gain in return? With the hammer. Well, your friend bought the hammer. Someone paid for it. Who pays in your model?
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    > You do understand that if your expectation for all proprietary products to disappear was to become true, you most likely rendered all software engineers to work for free. Because, let’s face it, who is going to pay for their time if there’s nothing to gain in return? That is a fairly weak argument. Is there any reason why you consider the status quo to be the only way for software engineers to earn money? Is there really "nothing to gain" from software, unless we rent-seek per-user license fee? Even if that were true, I'd gladly trade software engineering salaries for getting rid of proprietary software. It might just be the case that software engineers are overpaid, and the money comes from mistreatment of users. > With the hammer. Well, your friend bought the hammer. Someone paid for it. Who pays in your model? Maybe my friend. Maybe my friend's friend. Maybe nobody. Maybe we all donated to the HammerSoft inc., it doesn't matter. What matters is we have the software and we have freedom to use it in any way we wish. If you're saying that software wouldn't exist without extracting money from per-user license fees, that's completely false, as proven by the large body of Free Software that already exists.
    - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
      > That is a fairly weak argument. Is there any reason why you consider the status quo to be the only way for software engineers to earn money? Is there really "nothing to gain" from software, unless we rent-seek per-user license fee? You act like I'm trying to convince you. I'm just asking. Services come to mind. But as I said, even a company you put here as an example of that model provides paid, licensed software. Support is another one. But software isn't equal software. Do you think software running on medical devices should be free and open source? Should the operator of a medical device have a freedom to download a fork from github, compile and run on a device? An airline running a fork of an ECU software? > Even if that were true, I'd gladly trade software engineering salaries for getting rid of proprietary software. It might just be the case that software engineers are overpaid, and the money comes from mistreatment of users. Okay, we are all rushing to provide you with the free software you demand because of your "freedom". What about the "freedom" of all the software people to make a living? At the end of the day if they have paid customers who see the value in their software-they voted with their wallet-why does it bother you? > Maybe my friend. Maybe my friend's friend. Maybe nobody. Maybe we all donated to the HammerSoft inc., it doesn't matter. What matters is we have the software and we have freedom to use it in any way we wish. But with a hammer, if you and your friend want to use a hammer at the same time, you have to have two hammers. If both of you have only one hammer, only one of you can use it at a time. I get that you can borrow the hammer to your fiend without paying a license fee. But when you borrow your hammer, you can't use it.