5 ms·

> 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 purpos

> 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.
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      > You act like I'm trying to convince you. I'm just asking. I thought you were presenting an argument, sorry. In that case: > 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. Definitely not for free, but their wages might just get a little lower. This is all speculation, of course. > Because, let’s face it, who is going to pay for their time if there’s nothing to gain in return? There are many ways software engineers can be paid. Rent-seeking is one way, and it's the worst possible, because rent-seeking generally does not bring any value, only extracts it. I'll skip the rest of the argument to get to the core: > 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. Look at it this way: software is inherently different from physical objects - it's just information, and the effort to duplicate software is almost zero. So if my friend has a piece of software which makes his life a little better, he can share the software with me with almost-zero effort and make my life a little better, too. The more people we share the software with, the more lives we make a little better, at almost zero cost. Now businessmen, who are used to selling products and earning money through pure scale, are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - they are trying to turn software into a physical object, i.e. they are artificially increasing the effort needed to "copy" the software through licenses and law. It obviously will never work (completely), seeing how widespread piracy is, even in this modern digital witch-hunt age. But it is making the world a much worse place, restricting natural capabilities of software (its ability to be shared with zero effort) with artificial restrictions. Hopefully the above explanation will make my perspective clearer to you.

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.
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    > You act like I'm trying to convince you. I'm just asking. I thought you were presenting an argument, sorry. In that case: > 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. Definitely not for free, but their wages might just get a little lower. This is all speculation, of course. > Because, let’s face it, who is going to pay for their time if there’s nothing to gain in return? There are many ways software engineers can be paid. Rent-seeking is one way, and it's the worst possible, because rent-seeking generally does not bring any value, only extracts it. I'll skip the rest of the argument to get to the core: > 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. Look at it this way: software is inherently different from physical objects - it's just information, and the effort to duplicate software is almost zero. So if my friend has a piece of software which makes his life a little better, he can share the software with me with almost-zero effort and make my life a little better, too. The more people we share the software with, the more lives we make a little better, at almost zero cost. Now businessmen, who are used to selling products and earning money through pure scale, are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - they are trying to turn software into a physical object, i.e. they are artificially increasing the effort needed to "copy" the software through licenses and law. It obviously will never work (completely), seeing how widespread piracy is, even in this modern digital witch-hunt age. But it is making the world a much worse place, restricting natural capabilities of software (its ability to be shared with zero effort) with artificial restrictions. Hopefully the above explanation will make my perspective clearer to you.