5 ms·

There's nothing precluding F/LOSS from being commercialized. That's a common misunderstanding. The F/L stands for freedom, after all. There are many ways that

by imiric 4y ago

There's nothing precluding F/LOSS from being commercialized. That's a common misunderstanding. The F/L stands for freedom, after all. There are many ways that can be done, and authors are free to pick whichever business model works for them, depending on the type of software. If it's a web service, build a commercial SaaS around it, and make sure that you're the first and best option for users. If it's a desktop app, offer commercial extensions that enhance the core product. Or serve binaries behind a pay-what-you-wish paywall. If neither of those are a good fit, premium support, merchandise and ultimately donations might be an option.

manholio 4y ago
> If neither of those are a good fit, premium support, merchandise and ultimately donations might be an option. And what if neither of those are a good fit? Will you concede that there is a real world out there where open source software competes with proprietary and closed source systems? And that you cannot compete with corporations eating passion alone? That you have to have a monetization system in place that can generate at least a non-negligible fraction of what the closed source competitor can?
- imiric 4y ago
  As a sibling comment pointed out, deciding to write OSS is part of a broader philosophy on software freedoms, which also relates to monetization and business models. It means putting the freedom of your users above growing a corporation that can compete in financial terms with companies that don't ascribe to that philosophy. It also means having to be creative with how you monetize your product/service, and generally treating your users better than just as participants in a business transaction. If you don't agree with that philosophy then writing OSS is not for you, and that's OK. Most users unfortunately won't mind using software that doesn't give them these freedoms, and the internet at large is evidence of that. Some of us will choose not to use proprietary software, but if your main goal is to grow a business, you likely won't notice a small portion of these potential missing sales.
  - manholio 4y ago
    I don't dispute it's a philosophy, but it's an extremist version. It's like having the choice between asceticism, living alone in the desert eating critters, versus extreme hedonism, gluttony and materialism. But most people reject both. What I'm pointing out is that we could imagine a happy compromise where 99% of the goals of free software are achieved, that would not only allow developers to make a comfortable living, but also benefit the vast majority of people who use software without understanding technical complexities. If the software: - has source available, and anyone can study it and audit it; - allows anyone to create, for their own use, derived or custom versions; - allows anyone to make a business selling derived versions within the license terms (for example, in the time-bomb period the users of your patch must be licensees of the original owner); - guarantees that the vendor cannot lock you in, and the software will become completely free after a certain date; - generates resources for software development that would otherwise not be available, so that functionality could only exist in proprietary, closed source form, ... then, I belive, the loss, for a limited span of time, of the ability to use it gratis is a very good overall compromise. We all understand and accept the idea that work must be paid and that a price tag designates something valuable, that is worth making and paying for. Don't castigate money ideologically, use them to achieve the philosophic goals. Somewhere, somebody pulled a dirty trick on OSS developers and moved the goalposts to "and you must now renounce all material possessions and live on pure ether".
scombridae 4y ago
Knee-jerk (and correct) response to the "but OSS can be commercialized!" insistence: Why play the business game in nightmare mode? Leverage is real, folks, i.e., I can withhold my software if you don't pay up.
- sneak 4y ago
  > Why play the business game in nightmare mode? Because some of us actually believe that it's unethical to release software to users that they are not 100% free to use and modify in any conceivable way. Too many people today are hung up on "open source" or "free software" as a marketing bullet point. It's actually a philosophy and ideology, and the software licenses that came out of it are side effects.
  - scombridae 4y ago
    Knee-jerk response to "closed source is unethical": But I can't modify Coca-Cola or KFC's eleven herbs and spices either. It's called intellectual property, and it's undergirded economies both West and East since ancient times.
    - sneak 4y ago
      You are free to make cola or fried chicken at home; nothing about coca cola or kfc’s recipies is actually secret. That’s a myth. Intellectual property is a fiction. It is an abstraction invented whole cloth be legislative bodies to protect specific industries.
  - manholio 4y ago
    There is nothing unethical in having a commercial contract with your users whereby they pay for the features you implement. The typical ways this is done leads to unethical outcomes (lock-in, secret source etc. etc.) but by itself a commercial contract between willing and informed adults that don't harm people around them is not unethical. The extremist stance "free as in beer from day 1" is an ideology that, it should have become clear by now, is actually hurting the freedom of the public at large, who is pushed into proprietary cages set up by ruthless profit-maximizing businesses. There should be a better way where developers are paid, high quality software gets written, and users are free. There is nothing fundamental preventing such a world to exist.

by imiric 4y ago

manholio 4y ago

> If neither of those are a good fit, premium support, merchandise and ultimately donations might be an option. And what if neither of those are a good fit? Will you concede that there is a real world out there where open source software competes with proprietary and closed source systems? And that you cannot compete with corporations eating passion alone? That you have to have a monetization system in place that can generate at least a non-negligible fraction of what the closed source competitor can?

imiric 4y ago
As a sibling comment pointed out, deciding to write OSS is part of a broader philosophy on software freedoms, which also relates to monetization and business models. It means putting the freedom of your users above growing a corporation that can compete in financial terms with companies that don't ascribe to that philosophy. It also means having to be creative with how you monetize your product/service, and generally treating your users better than just as participants in a business transaction. If you don't agree with that philosophy then writing OSS is not for you, and that's OK. Most users unfortunately won't mind using software that doesn't give them these freedoms, and the internet at large is evidence of that. Some of us will choose not to use proprietary software, but if your main goal is to grow a business, you likely won't notice a small portion of these potential missing sales.
- manholio 4y ago
  I don't dispute it's a philosophy, but it's an extremist version. It's like having the choice between asceticism, living alone in the desert eating critters, versus extreme hedonism, gluttony and materialism. But most people reject both. What I'm pointing out is that we could imagine a happy compromise where 99% of the goals of free software are achieved, that would not only allow developers to make a comfortable living, but also benefit the vast majority of people who use software without understanding technical complexities. If the software: - has source available, and anyone can study it and audit it; - allows anyone to create, for their own use, derived or custom versions; - allows anyone to make a business selling derived versions within the license terms (for example, in the time-bomb period the users of your patch must be licensees of the original owner); - guarantees that the vendor cannot lock you in, and the software will become completely free after a certain date; - generates resources for software development that would otherwise not be available, so that functionality could only exist in proprietary, closed source form, ... then, I belive, the loss, for a limited span of time, of the ability to use it gratis is a very good overall compromise. We all understand and accept the idea that work must be paid and that a price tag designates something valuable, that is worth making and paying for. Don't castigate money ideologically, use them to achieve the philosophic goals. Somewhere, somebody pulled a dirty trick on OSS developers and moved the goalposts to "and you must now renounce all material possessions and live on pure ether".

scombridae 4y ago

Knee-jerk (and correct) response to the "but OSS can be commercialized!" insistence: Why play the business game in nightmare mode? Leverage is real, folks, i.e., I can withhold my software if you don't pay up.

sneak 4y ago
> Why play the business game in nightmare mode? Because some of us actually believe that it's unethical to release software to users that they are not 100% free to use and modify in any conceivable way. Too many people today are hung up on "open source" or "free software" as a marketing bullet point. It's actually a philosophy and ideology, and the software licenses that came out of it are side effects.
- scombridae 4y ago
  Knee-jerk response to "closed source is unethical": But I can't modify Coca-Cola or KFC's eleven herbs and spices either. It's called intellectual property, and it's undergirded economies both West and East since ancient times.
  - sneak 4y ago
    You are free to make cola or fried chicken at home; nothing about coca cola or kfc’s recipies is actually secret. That’s a myth. Intellectual property is a fiction. It is an abstraction invented whole cloth be legislative bodies to protect specific industries.
- manholio 4y ago
  There is nothing unethical in having a commercial contract with your users whereby they pay for the features you implement. The typical ways this is done leads to unethical outcomes (lock-in, secret source etc. etc.) but by itself a commercial contract between willing and informed adults that don't harm people around them is not unethical. The extremist stance "free as in beer from day 1" is an ideology that, it should have become clear by now, is actually hurting the freedom of the public at large, who is pushed into proprietary cages set up by ruthless profit-maximizing businesses. There should be a better way where developers are paid, high quality software gets written, and users are free. There is nothing fundamental preventing such a world to exist.