3 ms·

There's no denying the FSF has done good things, but I think more often than not they shoot themselves in the foot with their "wanting fair compensation for you

There's no denying the FSF has done good things, but I think more often than not they shoot themselves in the foot with their "wanting fair compensation for your work is evil" preaching. A market composed of honest users supporting honest developers, developing and selling software that focuses exclusively on the needs of the customer, would be the best possible system.

rzzzt 4y ago
Selling GPL-ed software and/or providing proprietary licensed versions in exchange for money is acceptable. Straight from the, ahem, GNU's mouth: - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
- causality0 4y ago
  Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. This is moronic pseudo-religious doublespeak. They're saying it's acceptable to charge a fee for the one part of software creation that's effectively cost-free.
  - rzzzt 4y ago
    It is cost-free if you have a knack for figuring out everything on your own, how build systems work, do it for a day job, etc.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Few people, in practice, have been able make a living selling pure GPLv3 software. Indeed it’s not strictly impossible but it’s extremely difficult under normal conditions. Even most of the vendors of free software today (e.g. Confluent) are using some kind of SaaS or open core model.
  - chii 4y ago
    to sell something that is infinitely, freely replicated, means you must also add some value to the object being sold. Unlike physical objects, where the sale accounts for the cost of production of material etc, what value does someone trying to sell a GPLv3 software add? I argue that the added value is zero, and hence, the price must be zero as well.

rzzzt 4y ago

Selling GPL-ed software and/or providing proprietary licensed versions in exchange for money is acceptable. Straight from the, ahem, GNU's mouth: - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

causality0 4y ago
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. This is moronic pseudo-religious doublespeak. They're saying it's acceptable to charge a fee for the one part of software creation that's effectively cost-free.
- rzzzt 4y ago
  It is cost-free if you have a knack for figuring out everything on your own, how build systems work, do it for a day job, etc.
School-Cotton 4y ago
Few people, in practice, have been able make a living selling pure GPLv3 software. Indeed it’s not strictly impossible but it’s extremely difficult under normal conditions. Even most of the vendors of free software today (e.g. Confluent) are using some kind of SaaS or open core model.
- chii 4y ago
  to sell something that is infinitely, freely replicated, means you must also add some value to the object being sold. Unlike physical objects, where the sale accounts for the cost of production of material etc, what value does someone trying to sell a GPLv3 software add? I argue that the added value is zero, and hence, the price must be zero as well.