6 ms·

Actually no. He is making a statement exactly on pricing. You've got the liberty not to buy it. But he's asking ALL software developers to stop making software

Actually no. He is making a statement exactly on pricing. You've got the liberty not to buy it. But he's asking ALL software developers to stop making software for money. How is that freedom? "So if they stop making it – that would be great!"

skore 15y ago
No, that's not what he was saying at all. He said people should stop making proprietary software. Whether or not a software is free as in freedom or proprietary has nothing to do with price.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Right, the pricing is more an implementation details of the licensing but of course in the real world(tm) it is an important one.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    You do realize that people sell GPL'd software all the time, right?
    - vertex-four 15y ago
      No, the ones that employ more than one or two people and make decent amounts of money sell services related to GPLed software. (In a world where everyone had proper Internet connections, we wouldn't have companies selling GPL software on physical media at all.) This probably isn't profitable in many cases, especially when distributing directly to the consumer rather than building a product for other business. There is another special case, but it's selling software in spite of the GPL; home routers, set top boxes, etc. Were they to use GPLv3 software, they'd have no way to protect against another company using their (potentially substantial) work on the software, building/copying the hardware design and creating cheap knock-offs within a few weeks of release, making it too costly to continue. If a group of companies and individuals wanted to come together to build a new router platform where all would contribute back to it, but they could differentiate themselves on edge features, management interfaces, etc, the BSD license is good enough; and probably a better bet than the GPL.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        And the practical differences are?
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        I think he just described some. There seems to be a phenomenon on HN of hardcore anti-copyright or pro-piracy posters who reply antagonistically to posts that they appear to have either deliberately misread or not read at all.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        The discussion is about the statement: "But he's asking ALL software developers to stop making software for money" That is blatantly false. Who gives a shit if they are selling software, or selling "support" for software? Either way people are making money with GPL software. There seems to be a phenomenon on HN of absurd pedants deliberately derailing conversations.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        My post was a reply to: "You do realize that people sell GPL'd software all the time, right?" You specifically said sell and I asked for examples.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        As I said, pedants derailing conversations. The most popular way seems to be selectively ignoring context. "sell" So sue me.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      Can you name a company (or a part of a company that is a profit center, or even an indie developer). That makes it's money primarily from selling GPL software? Software that used to be sold commercially but was subsequently GPL'd , starving artist type programmers scraping by on donations (i.e earning significantly less than the median programmer salary for someone of their skills) or companies that produce GPL software but make money selling either support or software/hardware based around their GPL software (that itself is not GPL) don't count.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3500373 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3500373 "don't count" Says you.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        They don't count because they are not selling software. They are selling something else and the software is essentially a byproduct. This means that there are categories of software where GPL does not really fit at all, games for example.
        rue 15y ago
        You're technically correct, burgerbrain made a poor argument. GPL software is in no way a barrier to earning money. It's, in fact, crucial to most software today, even if indirectly.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        Not sure I agree. Your correct that a huge amount of software today uses libraries that are distributed under some form of libre licensing although in most cases this is LGPL , BSD or Apache style licenses rather than GPL. Sure perhaps they run some stuff on a GNU/Linux server but in most cases this could just as easily be a BSD , Solaris or even Windows server. There are many types of software where GPL is absolutely a barrier , namely just about anything where the software is the end product. For example pretty much any video game or for example Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator. Some products simply don't lend themselves well to selling support , very few people are going to pay $1/min to get help running a program that is simple enough to figure out on their own from reading the manual and that should 99% of the time just install and run especially if it's not something mission critical that requires 6 nines uptime.
icebraining 15y ago
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

skore 15y ago

No, that's not what he was saying at all. He said people should stop making proprietary software. Whether or not a software is free as in freedom or proprietary has nothing to do with price.

jiggy2011 15y ago
Right, the pricing is more an implementation details of the licensing but of course in the real world(tm) it is an important one.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  You do realize that people sell GPL'd software all the time, right?
  - vertex-four 15y ago
    No, the ones that employ more than one or two people and make decent amounts of money sell services related to GPLed software. (In a world where everyone had proper Internet connections, we wouldn't have companies selling GPL software on physical media at all.) This probably isn't profitable in many cases, especially when distributing directly to the consumer rather than building a product for other business. There is another special case, but it's selling software in spite of the GPL; home routers, set top boxes, etc. Were they to use GPLv3 software, they'd have no way to protect against another company using their (potentially substantial) work on the software, building/copying the hardware design and creating cheap knock-offs within a few weeks of release, making it too costly to continue. If a group of companies and individuals wanted to come together to build a new router platform where all would contribute back to it, but they could differentiate themselves on edge features, management interfaces, etc, the BSD license is good enough; and probably a better bet than the GPL.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      And the practical differences are?
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        I think he just described some. There seems to be a phenomenon on HN of hardcore anti-copyright or pro-piracy posters who reply antagonistically to posts that they appear to have either deliberately misread or not read at all.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        The discussion is about the statement: "But he's asking ALL software developers to stop making software for money" That is blatantly false. Who gives a shit if they are selling software, or selling "support" for software? Either way people are making money with GPL software. There seems to be a phenomenon on HN of absurd pedants deliberately derailing conversations.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        My post was a reply to: "You do realize that people sell GPL'd software all the time, right?" You specifically said sell and I asked for examples.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        As I said, pedants derailing conversations. The most popular way seems to be selectively ignoring context. "sell" So sue me.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    Can you name a company (or a part of a company that is a profit center, or even an indie developer). That makes it's money primarily from selling GPL software? Software that used to be sold commercially but was subsequently GPL'd , starving artist type programmers scraping by on donations (i.e earning significantly less than the median programmer salary for someone of their skills) or companies that produce GPL software but make money selling either support or software/hardware based around their GPL software (that itself is not GPL) don't count.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3500373 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3500373 "don't count" Says you.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        They don't count because they are not selling software. They are selling something else and the software is essentially a byproduct. This means that there are categories of software where GPL does not really fit at all, games for example.
        rue 15y ago
        You're technically correct, burgerbrain made a poor argument. GPL software is in no way a barrier to earning money. It's, in fact, crucial to most software today, even if indirectly.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        Not sure I agree. Your correct that a huge amount of software today uses libraries that are distributed under some form of libre licensing although in most cases this is LGPL , BSD or Apache style licenses rather than GPL. Sure perhaps they run some stuff on a GNU/Linux server but in most cases this could just as easily be a BSD , Solaris or even Windows server. There are many types of software where GPL is absolutely a barrier , namely just about anything where the software is the end product. For example pretty much any video game or for example Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator. Some products simply don't lend themselves well to selling support , very few people are going to pay $1/min to get help running a program that is simple enough to figure out on their own from reading the manual and that should 99% of the time just install and run especially if it's not something mission critical that requires 6 nines uptime.

icebraining 15y ago

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html