3 ms·

It's just business though. It has nothing to do with the software, the software is just a tool to enforce a business model. A car that already has the hardware

by mrtksn 3y ago

It's just business though. It has nothing to do with the software, the software is just a tool to enforce a business model. A car that already has the hardware but requires payment to enable that by software is exactly the same thing as paying for a video game: The video game is already created and uploaded on the servers but software requires payment to let you download and play it. There are numerous other examples like game consoles sold at loss, printers sold less than the cost, search engines or mail services provided for free, free hosting etc. - all investing huge sums on creating the product in hope to recoup that and make profit by collecting small fees later and they need their products locked down to be able to do this. The whole thing revolves around collecting small payments for a the very large capital investment that is required to create the product in first place. Since the small payments are collected post-development, someone has to risk their large capital for this to happen, they also expect compensation and guarantees that the small payments will arrive if the product is developed successfully. The software is locked down only because they want to enforce that business model. You can refuse to participate in that but ultimately, those who can invest large amount of money end up making the much better products.

groestl 3y ago
> the software is just a tool to enforce a business model. And that's what RMS understood better than many others: His software (and by proxy it's license) is just a tool to enforce an ethical business model.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  What's more ethical about receiving payments immediately for the job done at this very moment than investing your time and money to build something and receive payments for it later?
  - groestl 3y ago
    That's a strawman, because neither I nor RMS make arguments about the timing of payments in relation to work done. The restrictions on business models (imposed by software licenses as a tool) is necessary to preserve the Four Freedoms, which, at least in his view are required to use software ethically. RMS predicted, and accurately as we see, that forgoing these essential Freedoms will create a world where software is used (on us) in an unethical way.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Fair enough but how are people compensated when you adhere to the ideology? You can’t advocate an ideology without a solution to the problems at hand. Someone needs to write that software, and that someone needs to be fed and sheltered. It’s also not shameful to want more than staying alive.
      - layer8 3y ago
        Sell support, and protection against liability.
        mrtksn 3y ago
        Cool. You do that, good luck for selling support for your open source TikTok video effects app. The gist is, for different situations different business models can work. If the one you propose works for your software, good for you. The problem starts when you demand that other business models should not exist, so yours can work.
        groestl 3y ago
        > when you demand that other business models should not exist, so yours can work. Aside from the fact that in democracies we regularly oust business models which we believe have dimetral effects on society, this is not what happens here. Free software exists as a choice. And is often chosen freely, because of it's transparency, quality, and continuity, not because of it's price. In fact, when you base your work on a foundation so large that it's infeasible to recreate it, the Four Freedoms actually work in _your_ favor as a business.
delusional 3y ago
This is very much not true. I'd argue that most successful and useful software has indeed NOT been made by "those who collect the most money". Linux is a wonderful operating system, it lets you do whatever you want, and it collect NO money. The web, created by scientists and popularized by cheap and libre software, hasn't collected even a fraction of a promille of the value it has generated. The browser market, dominated by chrome, still has mozilla as the only currently feature complete alternative. Even the king of collecting value, Microsoft, aren't bothering to develop their own browser. Most software worth a damn was made by a few people who cared. The business around it usually just gets in the way. This year you'll see hundreds of startups trying to "collect money" for some asinine idea. Most of those startups wont create anything of value. Even the successful ones will be gone or irrelevant in 5 years.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Who paid those who created Linux? They are probably humans who have to eat 3 times a day and have a shelter. It was paid by governmental institutions, loved ones of those who write the code and ideologues who made money some other ways(like working at Microsoft or Palantir) and chipped in for the cause. Linux just has a different business model. If you can do all your things like that, cool. Many other business models are possible too, use that to create better products than the "invest huge sums now and develop the thing, collect small payments down the road". It's strange to expect that other business models shouldn't exist so yours can work. If you don't like locked down cars, just make cars the way you see fit.

by mrtksn 3y ago

groestl 3y ago

> the software is just a tool to enforce a business model. And that's what RMS understood better than many others: His software (and by proxy it's license) is just a tool to enforce an ethical business model.

mrtksn 3y ago
What's more ethical about receiving payments immediately for the job done at this very moment than investing your time and money to build something and receive payments for it later?
- groestl 3y ago
  That's a strawman, because neither I nor RMS make arguments about the timing of payments in relation to work done. The restrictions on business models (imposed by software licenses as a tool) is necessary to preserve the Four Freedoms, which, at least in his view are required to use software ethically. RMS predicted, and accurately as we see, that forgoing these essential Freedoms will create a world where software is used (on us) in an unethical way.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Fair enough but how are people compensated when you adhere to the ideology? You can’t advocate an ideology without a solution to the problems at hand. Someone needs to write that software, and that someone needs to be fed and sheltered. It’s also not shameful to want more than staying alive.
    - layer8 3y ago
      Sell support, and protection against liability.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        Cool. You do that, good luck for selling support for your open source TikTok video effects app. The gist is, for different situations different business models can work. If the one you propose works for your software, good for you. The problem starts when you demand that other business models should not exist, so yours can work.
        groestl 3y ago
        > when you demand that other business models should not exist, so yours can work. Aside from the fact that in democracies we regularly oust business models which we believe have dimetral effects on society, this is not what happens here. Free software exists as a choice. And is often chosen freely, because of it's transparency, quality, and continuity, not because of it's price. In fact, when you base your work on a foundation so large that it's infeasible to recreate it, the Four Freedoms actually work in _your_ favor as a business.

delusional 3y ago

This is very much not true. I'd argue that most successful and useful software has indeed NOT been made by "those who collect the most money". Linux is a wonderful operating system, it lets you do whatever you want, and it collect NO money. The web, created by scientists and popularized by cheap and libre software, hasn't collected even a fraction of a promille of the value it has generated. The browser market, dominated by chrome, still has mozilla as the only currently feature complete alternative. Even the king of collecting value, Microsoft, aren't bothering to develop their own browser. Most software worth a damn was made by a few people who cared. The business around it usually just gets in the way. This year you'll see hundreds of startups trying to "collect money" for some asinine idea. Most of those startups wont create anything of value. Even the successful ones will be gone or irrelevant in 5 years.

mrtksn 3y ago
Who paid those who created Linux? They are probably humans who have to eat 3 times a day and have a shelter. It was paid by governmental institutions, loved ones of those who write the code and ideologues who made money some other ways(like working at Microsoft or Palantir) and chipped in for the cause. Linux just has a different business model. If you can do all your things like that, cool. Many other business models are possible too, use that to create better products than the "invest huge sums now and develop the thing, collect small payments down the road". It's strange to expect that other business models shouldn't exist so yours can work. If you don't like locked down cars, just make cars the way you see fit.