4 ms·

>You can set up nice places for them to put their hives. Paying their rent would be a good start, and like bees, make them more productive.

Dalewyn 4y ago
I'm going to be that guy and point out that Free and Open Source are two related but separate concepts. An open source dev can still charge for his code, and should if he needs/wants to make a living off of it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tremon 4y ago
  So can a Free Software developer, so what point are you trying to make with your first sentence?
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    We have no obligation to pay their rent because they explicitly waived such desires. EDIT: I realize I failed at reading comprehension. Apologies. Free-as-in-libre runs counter to asking for payment because they, as far as my layman understanding is concerned, are mutually exclusive. Code can't be free-as-in-libre if you have to pay monies to get any rights thereof. Open source, on the other hand, is just that: The source is open for viewing. You can read the code at your leisure, but what you can do with the code or the knowledge gained from reading it is an entirely different matter. So a free dev fundamentally can't charge for his code, but an open source dev can charge for his code.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      Free-as-in-libre means you don't have to pay for code itself, as it exists at a given moment. You can, but don't have to. However, that doesn't mean Free Software becomes completely detached from the economy - on the contrary, it's actually meant to empower the economy, in particular smaller and local economies. That's because labor isn't free. Say the code, as is, solves 90% of the problem. To get to 100%, you need some changes to be made. That is, you need to get someone - the original author(s), or a third party - to make them for you. They're not obliged to do it for free - only to release such changes for free to everyone's benefit. So you have to pay someone. The license just makes sure everyone benefits, and that incremental benefits need to be only paid for once. Additionally, code alone isn't a solution. Any kind of deployment, hosting, management, etc. involves labor, whether in-house, hired, or from a service provider. Again, the code commands money to be moved to those providing value by building up on it. The license only makes sure nobody gets to treat the code itself as their exclusively-owned capital.
      - fsckboy 4y ago
        no! free as in libre means free as in freedom like the word liberation, not anything to do with paying. because, it gives the user the freedom to use a program and then modify it to suit their own taste, and to give that same freedom to any person using their version.
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        > no! free as in libre means free as in freedom like the word liberation, not anything to do with paying. That's a naive, dreaming view. RMS and others at FSF were and are realists. GPL isn't an empty political statement. > it gives the user the freedom to use a program and then modify it to suit their own taste, and to give that same freedom to any person using their version Yes, that's what the license says, more or less. But that alone isn't interesting. Look instead at the first-order consequences. Look at what these statements do. Or, in other words, as you read code, don't focus on syntax but on what the program will actually do when run.
        codeguro 4y ago
        No, he’s right. The GPL has everything to do with freedom. Money and monetary aspects are entirely orthogonal to the GPL and the FSF as a whole. This is said by Stallman and the GNU projects itself. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        Thanks for linking. I re-read that article just now, and I interpret it differently. In a completely abstract view, GPL indeed says nothing about money. However, there's a reason the very article you linked exists - GPL exists in the real world, world defined by money and markets. As such, the article reminds us that being able to sell the software is a part of the end-user freedoms that Free Software protects. The article in fact explicitly recognizes people need to make money, and encourages them to try making money on Free Software. My claim here is that Stallman and the FSF have a very realistic view of the world. The Free Software isn't about empowering individuals - it's about empowering communities. And communities, in the real world, always have some form of internal economy - be it favor-based, gift-based or money-based. They have a form of specialization of labor. They're also embedded in the larger local and global economies, and to survive, they need to be productive participants. Free Software isn't preventing people from making money on software - it's just counteracting the natural tendency for software to turn into capital and concentrate in the hands of the few. That is, it protects people's ability to make money via the software (should they choose to) from the interests that would build on it, establish exclusive ownership, and use it to seek rent. FWIW, this became clear to me when I started to look into what the "right to repair" movement is really about. There's a common argument against RtR, that's very similar to a common argument against Free Software: that it assumes or mandates everyone to be a specialist able to fix and improve their devices on their own. But the RtR crowd had a very clear counter to this: it's not about you becoming a hardware engineer so you can fix your own devices. It's about you being able to get a friend, or find a local repair shop, and pay them to fix your device for you. RtR is also expressed in terms of individual freedoms and seemingly orthogonal to monetary issues - but it's been made clear all this is primarily about making the economics of local community repairs work. Once I grokked that, I realized Free Software has always been about the same thing, but for software.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      > We have no obligation to pay their rent because they explicitly waived such desires. It's not about obligation. Nobody is claiming we're legally obliged to pay developers of free or open-source projects. It's about interest. As in it's in society's interest to pay for valuable infrastructure that's available to the public. As an example, consider weather data. It's a huge benefit to all sorts of people to have good weather and climate data. It supports not just the activity of citizens, but of many businesses. Are we obligated to pay for that? No. But is it in our interest to? Definitely. If we want things to be sustained, we need to make them sustainable. Otherwise, eventually the person in Nebraska will decide they have something better to do: https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        >Are we obligated to pay for that? Seeing as NASA and NOAA are paid for by taxes, it actually is. Now with the (decidely American) pedantics aside... I agree with you in principle, but ultimately if people want to be paid they need to make that need or desire explicitly clear and on the record. Voluntary generosity can and will only go so far. If someone releases their code under free-as-in-libre and/or -beer licensing, they don't get to subsequently complain if acts of voluntary generosity are "insufficient".
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > If someone releases their code under free-as-in-libre and/or -beer licensing, they don't get to subsequently complain if acts of voluntary generosity are "insufficient". You are hitting shortcomings of copyright, rather than mistakes if the authors
        wpietri 4y ago
        Currently weather data is paid for by taxes. Although it hasn't always been, and it's currently under threat, so it's not a given going forward. But that's all beside the point. The point is that it is in society's interest to just pay for some things that are widely benefited from. Weather data's just one example. > if people want to be paid they need to make that need or desire explicitly clear and on the record Nope! > they don't get to subsequently complain Also nope! You are not a person who gets to decide that for everybody. A free license isn't a suicide pact or a ball gag. People can do things and then complain if it's not working out. Or not, as they prefer! But that too is beside the point. Which is that as a society we should figure out ways to support public goods like certain open-source software. Whether or not a given package maintainer asks.
    - tremon 4y ago
      Open source, on the other hand, is just that: The source is open for viewing No. You're confusing source-available with open source (several large software corporations are very grateful to you for perpetuating their FUD). The monetization rules are identical for Open Source and Free Software. From the horse's mouth: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - codeguro 4y ago
      YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  >An open source dev can still charge for his code I see this said a lot, and it seems to be somewhat accepted, but I've always wondered, since point five of the OSI definition is: >No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups Would this not technically count as economic discrimination?
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    It's not discrimination because everyone has to pay the price tag. Equality is about equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. That said, commercial open source software by and large fail because the primary reason people want open source software is because they all tend to be free-as-in-beer. Nobody truly cares about libre and cooperation and auditing, it's all about the monies. Don't believe me? The first thing nearly all large-scale FOSS deployments tout is how much they will save in Windows and Office licenses.
    - codeguro 4y ago
      RMS cares quite a bit about it, as do I. You don’t talk for everybody.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    How would it?
- AndyMcConachie 4y ago
  The Atlantic Council doesn't care about this distinction, nor should they.

Dalewyn 4y ago

I'm going to be that guy and point out that Free and Open Source are two related but separate concepts. An open source dev can still charge for his code, and should if he needs/wants to make a living off of it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tremon 4y ago
So can a Free Software developer, so what point are you trying to make with your first sentence?
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  We have no obligation to pay their rent because they explicitly waived such desires. EDIT: I realize I failed at reading comprehension. Apologies. Free-as-in-libre runs counter to asking for payment because they, as far as my layman understanding is concerned, are mutually exclusive. Code can't be free-as-in-libre if you have to pay monies to get any rights thereof. Open source, on the other hand, is just that: The source is open for viewing. You can read the code at your leisure, but what you can do with the code or the knowledge gained from reading it is an entirely different matter. So a free dev fundamentally can't charge for his code, but an open source dev can charge for his code.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Free-as-in-libre means you don't have to pay for code itself, as it exists at a given moment. You can, but don't have to. However, that doesn't mean Free Software becomes completely detached from the economy - on the contrary, it's actually meant to empower the economy, in particular smaller and local economies. That's because labor isn't free. Say the code, as is, solves 90% of the problem. To get to 100%, you need some changes to be made. That is, you need to get someone - the original author(s), or a third party - to make them for you. They're not obliged to do it for free - only to release such changes for free to everyone's benefit. So you have to pay someone. The license just makes sure everyone benefits, and that incremental benefits need to be only paid for once. Additionally, code alone isn't a solution. Any kind of deployment, hosting, management, etc. involves labor, whether in-house, hired, or from a service provider. Again, the code commands money to be moved to those providing value by building up on it. The license only makes sure nobody gets to treat the code itself as their exclusively-owned capital.
    - fsckboy 4y ago
      no! free as in libre means free as in freedom like the word liberation, not anything to do with paying. because, it gives the user the freedom to use a program and then modify it to suit their own taste, and to give that same freedom to any person using their version.
      - TeMPOraL 4y ago
        > no! free as in libre means free as in freedom like the word liberation, not anything to do with paying. That's a naive, dreaming view. RMS and others at FSF were and are realists. GPL isn't an empty political statement. > it gives the user the freedom to use a program and then modify it to suit their own taste, and to give that same freedom to any person using their version Yes, that's what the license says, more or less. But that alone isn't interesting. Look instead at the first-order consequences. Look at what these statements do. Or, in other words, as you read code, don't focus on syntax but on what the program will actually do when run.
        codeguro 4y ago
        No, he’s right. The GPL has everything to do with freedom. Money and monetary aspects are entirely orthogonal to the GPL and the FSF as a whole. This is said by Stallman and the GNU projects itself. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        Thanks for linking. I re-read that article just now, and I interpret it differently. In a completely abstract view, GPL indeed says nothing about money. However, there's a reason the very article you linked exists - GPL exists in the real world, world defined by money and markets. As such, the article reminds us that being able to sell the software is a part of the end-user freedoms that Free Software protects. The article in fact explicitly recognizes people need to make money, and encourages them to try making money on Free Software. My claim here is that Stallman and the FSF have a very realistic view of the world. The Free Software isn't about empowering individuals - it's about empowering communities. And communities, in the real world, always have some form of internal economy - be it favor-based, gift-based or money-based. They have a form of specialization of labor. They're also embedded in the larger local and global economies, and to survive, they need to be productive participants. Free Software isn't preventing people from making money on software - it's just counteracting the natural tendency for software to turn into capital and concentrate in the hands of the few. That is, it protects people's ability to make money via the software (should they choose to) from the interests that would build on it, establish exclusive ownership, and use it to seek rent. FWIW, this became clear to me when I started to look into what the "right to repair" movement is really about. There's a common argument against RtR, that's very similar to a common argument against Free Software: that it assumes or mandates everyone to be a specialist able to fix and improve their devices on their own. But the RtR crowd had a very clear counter to this: it's not about you becoming a hardware engineer so you can fix your own devices. It's about you being able to get a friend, or find a local repair shop, and pay them to fix your device for you. RtR is also expressed in terms of individual freedoms and seemingly orthogonal to monetary issues - but it's been made clear all this is primarily about making the economics of local community repairs work. Once I grokked that, I realized Free Software has always been about the same thing, but for software.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    > We have no obligation to pay their rent because they explicitly waived such desires. It's not about obligation. Nobody is claiming we're legally obliged to pay developers of free or open-source projects. It's about interest. As in it's in society's interest to pay for valuable infrastructure that's available to the public. As an example, consider weather data. It's a huge benefit to all sorts of people to have good weather and climate data. It supports not just the activity of citizens, but of many businesses. Are we obligated to pay for that? No. But is it in our interest to? Definitely. If we want things to be sustained, we need to make them sustainable. Otherwise, eventually the person in Nebraska will decide they have something better to do: https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      >Are we obligated to pay for that? Seeing as NASA and NOAA are paid for by taxes, it actually is. Now with the (decidely American) pedantics aside... I agree with you in principle, but ultimately if people want to be paid they need to make that need or desire explicitly clear and on the record. Voluntary generosity can and will only go so far. If someone releases their code under free-as-in-libre and/or -beer licensing, they don't get to subsequently complain if acts of voluntary generosity are "insufficient".
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > If someone releases their code under free-as-in-libre and/or -beer licensing, they don't get to subsequently complain if acts of voluntary generosity are "insufficient". You are hitting shortcomings of copyright, rather than mistakes if the authors
      - wpietri 4y ago
        Currently weather data is paid for by taxes. Although it hasn't always been, and it's currently under threat, so it's not a given going forward. But that's all beside the point. The point is that it is in society's interest to just pay for some things that are widely benefited from. Weather data's just one example. > if people want to be paid they need to make that need or desire explicitly clear and on the record Nope! > they don't get to subsequently complain Also nope! You are not a person who gets to decide that for everybody. A free license isn't a suicide pact or a ball gag. People can do things and then complain if it's not working out. Or not, as they prefer! But that too is beside the point. Which is that as a society we should figure out ways to support public goods like certain open-source software. Whether or not a given package maintainer asks.
  - tremon 4y ago
    Open source, on the other hand, is just that: The source is open for viewing No. You're confusing source-available with open source (several large software corporations are very grateful to you for perpetuating their FUD). The monetization rules are identical for Open Source and Free Software. From the horse's mouth: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - codeguro 4y ago
    YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
RobotToaster 4y ago
>An open source dev can still charge for his code I see this said a lot, and it seems to be somewhat accepted, but I've always wondered, since point five of the OSI definition is: >No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups Would this not technically count as economic discrimination?
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  It's not discrimination because everyone has to pay the price tag. Equality is about equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. That said, commercial open source software by and large fail because the primary reason people want open source software is because they all tend to be free-as-in-beer. Nobody truly cares about libre and cooperation and auditing, it's all about the monies. Don't believe me? The first thing nearly all large-scale FOSS deployments tout is how much they will save in Windows and Office licenses.
  - codeguro 4y ago
    RMS cares quite a bit about it, as do I. You don’t talk for everybody.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  How would it?
AndyMcConachie 4y ago
The Atlantic Council doesn't care about this distinction, nor should they.