4 ms·

Software is a good, and like most goods you can sell it, you can trade it or you can give it away. It is not necessarily a physical good, but the cost of dupli

Software is a good, and like most goods you can sell it, you can trade it or you can give it away. It is not necessarily a physical good, but the cost of duplicating physical goods has greatly decreased with automation and robotics. They’re digital copies of the original, like high resolution pictures of the painting somebody took months to make. Free software benefits others, but you can’t choose the membership of “others”.

Zambyte 3y ago
As someone who directly benefits from software being sold (meaning a pricetag is put on the transfer of software), I don't think software should ever be sold. Labor should be sold, because that's the part that is actually expensive and valuable. Once software has been written, it should only be limited by network transfer rates and the size of the audience that wants it. Anything else is artificial scarcity for the sake of lining our pockets.
- MontyCarloHall 3y ago
  If the product of that labor cannot be sold, how is the labor paid for?
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    Contracts.
    - MontyCarloHall 3y ago
      You mean support contracts, like RedHat? This only works for certain software where that’s a suitable revenue model. How would that work for, say, AAA games, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and require little-to-no support after they’re released?
      - Zambyte 3y ago
        > You mean support contracts, like RedHat? Perhaps. I mean more generally: labor contracts. "I will pay you X to do Y", where Y could be to write some software to do something. > How would that work for, say, AAA games, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and require little-to-no support after they’re released? It wouldn't. I also think the state of AAA games is awful, and we shouldn't strive to support that model.
    - auggierose 3y ago
      So I first need to do a contract with some imaginary customer before I am allowed to develop some software I just had an idea for? It's not that easy to come up with a consistent economic model, is it?
      - Zambyte 3y ago
        Carpenters, plumbers, and electricians seem to manifest their imaginary customers just fine by selling labor contracts.
        martin8412 3y ago
        Those fields have somewhat exclusive rights to the work they do. You can't just start doing electrical work without proper credentials.
        jleyank 3y ago
        Not a valid comparison as their work can’t be transferred. This, to me, is arguing that software should be developed for a specific customer and not distributed further. Which probably isn’t what you’re arguing.
        Zambyte 3y ago
        If I buy a house that needs work, contract that work to be done, and then sell that house with the work done, I believe I have distributed the result of that labor. With the proprietary software model, I would not be able to sell a house that I have had electrical work done under contract. That is bogus.
        jwestbury 3y ago
        You're actually making the case for licensed software without free distribution here -- the plumber has worked on your house, and possibly installed parts, just as someone may work on a computer, and possibly install software. If you want, you could remove those parts and sell them to your neighbour, but then you wouldn't have them anymore. Or, you could sell the house whole, just as you could sell a computer with software installed (okay, peculiarities of licensing may make that challenging, and I'm in favour of licensing reform). But what you can't do with plumbing work is have it performed, then copy it to your neighbour's house whilst still keeping it for yourself. You can do that with free software.
- lr4444lr 3y ago
  That's not an invalid point of view, but if the expertise, trade secrets, and skill of your labor is evident in the product, and it is now takeable at no cost, you've sold WAY more than your skilled time building the product: you've sold the years you spent developing the skills, finding markets, etc. That just isn't realistically priced in yet.

Zambyte 3y ago

As someone who directly benefits from software being sold (meaning a pricetag is put on the transfer of software), I don't think software should ever be sold. Labor should be sold, because that's the part that is actually expensive and valuable. Once software has been written, it should only be limited by network transfer rates and the size of the audience that wants it. Anything else is artificial scarcity for the sake of lining our pockets.

MontyCarloHall 3y ago
If the product of that labor cannot be sold, how is the labor paid for?
- Zambyte 3y ago
  Contracts.
  - MontyCarloHall 3y ago
    You mean support contracts, like RedHat? This only works for certain software where that’s a suitable revenue model. How would that work for, say, AAA games, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and require little-to-no support after they’re released?
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      > You mean support contracts, like RedHat? Perhaps. I mean more generally: labor contracts. "I will pay you X to do Y", where Y could be to write some software to do something. > How would that work for, say, AAA games, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and require little-to-no support after they’re released? It wouldn't. I also think the state of AAA games is awful, and we shouldn't strive to support that model.
  - auggierose 3y ago
    So I first need to do a contract with some imaginary customer before I am allowed to develop some software I just had an idea for? It's not that easy to come up with a consistent economic model, is it?
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      Carpenters, plumbers, and electricians seem to manifest their imaginary customers just fine by selling labor contracts.
      - martin8412 3y ago
        Those fields have somewhat exclusive rights to the work they do. You can't just start doing electrical work without proper credentials.
      - jleyank 3y ago
        Not a valid comparison as their work can’t be transferred. This, to me, is arguing that software should be developed for a specific customer and not distributed further. Which probably isn’t what you’re arguing.
        Zambyte 3y ago
        If I buy a house that needs work, contract that work to be done, and then sell that house with the work done, I believe I have distributed the result of that labor. With the proprietary software model, I would not be able to sell a house that I have had electrical work done under contract. That is bogus.
        jwestbury 3y ago
        You're actually making the case for licensed software without free distribution here -- the plumber has worked on your house, and possibly installed parts, just as someone may work on a computer, and possibly install software. If you want, you could remove those parts and sell them to your neighbour, but then you wouldn't have them anymore. Or, you could sell the house whole, just as you could sell a computer with software installed (okay, peculiarities of licensing may make that challenging, and I'm in favour of licensing reform). But what you can't do with plumbing work is have it performed, then copy it to your neighbour's house whilst still keeping it for yourself. You can do that with free software.
lr4444lr 3y ago
That's not an invalid point of view, but if the expertise, trade secrets, and skill of your labor is evident in the product, and it is now takeable at no cost, you've sold WAY more than your skilled time building the product: you've sold the years you spent developing the skills, finding markets, etc. That just isn't realistically priced in yet.