3 ms·

I was surprised to find such an article here. I thought that this site was all about promoting starups? If you think about it for a minute, Richard Stallman's p

I was surprised to find such an article here. I thought that this site was all about promoting starups? If you think about it for a minute, Richard Stallman's point of view would eliminate most startups that ycombinator promotes (directly or indirectly). They would fail financially. He mentions using google and duckduckgo on friends computers. Do you think he would consider clicking on adverts free? I don't think so because clicking on them results in a transfer of money somewhere. Unless his definition of free is that he himself did not pay out of his own pocket for it? (someone else pays for it). If this were the case, If someone bought him a copy of windows as a gift would he use it. So I ask, why is this anti-startup (at least for the 90% of startups you see here) blog linked from here? If you disagree with my reaction/question - answer with your solution which would allow these 90% of startups to survive financially if only Richard Stallman followers used them.

rpicard 15y ago
I think you might misunderstand what he means by "free". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- goggles99 15y ago
  No, not at all: source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "...Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." What would this do to most startups today?
  - zach95 15y ago
    Most startups...do you have any data on the business model of most startups? Presumably, if a startup is working from GPLed software, it's business model would be to offer training, support, custom modification and preferential updates and features. Lots of big players like IBM, Oracle and RedHat are making billions from this approach. There's lots of untapped markets and plenty of room for entrepreneurs here too. I think that even Microsoft is getting in on this game. If it's working from MIT/BSD-licensed software, then it can close that software off and put restrictions on what people who buy it can do with it. Apple is taking this route. Startups are also free to develop their own closed source, freedom-restricted software. Of course, then they generally have to compete in quality with software which doesn't restrict user freedom. It's especially hard for startups to offer closed source freedom restricted software because customers expect startups to fail, and then they are stuck with a product that can't be maintained or updated. Startups are also free not to distribute their software in which case even with software under freedom-preserving licenses they don't have to distribute the code. They could do this for example by offering web services that used this software.
  - zach95 15y ago
    You wrote: "Do you think he would consider clicking on adverts free? I don't think so because clicking on them results in a transfer of money somewhere. Unless his definition of free is that he himself did not pay out of his own pocket for it? (someone else pays for it). If this were the case, If someone bought him a copy of windows as a gift would he use it." I think the previous reply was right to point out you were confusing free as in beer with free as in liberty.

rpicard 15y ago

I think you might misunderstand what he means by "free". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

goggles99 15y ago
No, not at all: source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "...Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." What would this do to most startups today?
- zach95 15y ago
  Most startups...do you have any data on the business model of most startups? Presumably, if a startup is working from GPLed software, it's business model would be to offer training, support, custom modification and preferential updates and features. Lots of big players like IBM, Oracle and RedHat are making billions from this approach. There's lots of untapped markets and plenty of room for entrepreneurs here too. I think that even Microsoft is getting in on this game. If it's working from MIT/BSD-licensed software, then it can close that software off and put restrictions on what people who buy it can do with it. Apple is taking this route. Startups are also free to develop their own closed source, freedom-restricted software. Of course, then they generally have to compete in quality with software which doesn't restrict user freedom. It's especially hard for startups to offer closed source freedom restricted software because customers expect startups to fail, and then they are stuck with a product that can't be maintained or updated. Startups are also free not to distribute their software in which case even with software under freedom-preserving licenses they don't have to distribute the code. They could do this for example by offering web services that used this software.
- zach95 15y ago
  You wrote: "Do you think he would consider clicking on adverts free? I don't think so because clicking on them results in a transfer of money somewhere. Unless his definition of free is that he himself did not pay out of his own pocket for it? (someone else pays for it). If this were the case, If someone bought him a copy of windows as a gift would he use it." I think the previous reply was right to point out you were confusing free as in beer with free as in liberty.