4 ms·

At the risk of being downvoted, this illustrates why paying for software is sometimes cheaper than "free" software.

madeofpalk 4y ago
Why would this be downvoted? Isn't this the whole point of the story?
bheadmaster 4y ago
> paying for software is sometimes cheaper than "free" software Note that the original meaning of the term "Free Software" refers to liberty, not price: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
- GnarfGnarf 4y ago
  Can you show me an example of "free"-as-in-liberty software, that the creator(s) nevertheless charge(s) money for?
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    Anything that is dual licensed GPL or AGPL along with a commercial license.
  - marcus0x62 4y ago
    Cygnus was the canonical example for a long time - they heavily contributed to the GNU developer tool chain in the 90’s and made money selling support contracts to corporate users.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Qt uses a double-licensing model - they provide their software with GPL license (which requires all derivative software to also be GPL), while selling commercial license for money (which allows derivative software to be proprietary).
  - ksherlock 4y ago
    The FSF used to sell tapes (and later CDs) of GCC and Emacs. I'm sure that revenue stream has dried up in recent years but it was a money maker in the 80s.
  - latexr 4y ago
    Textual¹ is open-source but sells the precompiled app. Keka² has the app available for free on GitHub but charges for it on the Mac App Store, to support development. ¹ IRC client for macOS: https://github.com/Codeux-Software/Textual https://github.com/Codeux-Software/Textual ² Un/archiver for macOS: https://github.com/aonez/Keka https://github.com/aonez/Keka
roelschroeven 4y ago
I'm not so sure. Payed-for software can get unmaintained just as well. Companies go bust, are sold, or change direction for whatever reason. Paying for a product doesn't give you any guarantee either.

Why would this be downvoted? Isn't this the whole point of the story?

> paying for software is sometimes cheaper than "free" software Note that the original meaning of the term "Free Software" refers to liberty, not price: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

GnarfGnarf 4y ago
Can you show me an example of "free"-as-in-liberty software, that the creator(s) nevertheless charge(s) money for?
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Anything that is dual licensed GPL or AGPL along with a commercial license.
- marcus0x62 4y ago
  Cygnus was the canonical example for a long time - they heavily contributed to the GNU developer tool chain in the 90’s and made money selling support contracts to corporate users.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Qt uses a double-licensing model - they provide their software with GPL license (which requires all derivative software to also be GPL), while selling commercial license for money (which allows derivative software to be proprietary).
- ksherlock 4y ago
  The FSF used to sell tapes (and later CDs) of GCC and Emacs. I'm sure that revenue stream has dried up in recent years but it was a money maker in the 80s.
- latexr 4y ago
  Textual¹ is open-source but sells the precompiled app. Keka² has the app available for free on GitHub but charges for it on the Mac App Store, to support development. ¹ IRC client for macOS: https://github.com/Codeux-Software/Textual https://github.com/Codeux-Software/Textual ² Un/archiver for macOS: https://github.com/aonez/Keka https://github.com/aonez/Keka

roelschroeven 4y ago

I'm not so sure. Payed-for software can get unmaintained just as well. Companies go bust, are sold, or change direction for whatever reason. Paying for a product doesn't give you any guarantee either.