3 ms·

Don't forget, people used to say the same stuff about software. The software market reacted by putting a lot of stuff on platforms like Steam, App Stores, or la

Don't forget, people used to say the same stuff about software. The software market reacted by putting a lot of stuff on platforms like Steam, App Stores, or launching things as webapps. Games did this first and most often because they had an estimated 80-90% piracy rate. Nowdays, it's even easier for software guys to say that MP3s and so on should be free when the dominant modes of end-user software delivery are restricted somehow (with the exception of business software, but businesses are easy to sue). It's not their information that wants to be free, just someone else's.

tikhonj 14y ago
I think it's easy for software people to say this for the opposite reason: we are much less dependent on restrictive software than most people, and certainly less dependent on it than on similarly restrictive music or movies. All the best developer tools (Linux, Emacs, compilers...) are entirely free. They even go beyond simply being free to access--you are free to do whatever you want with them, and, moreover, there are guarantees for a lot that nobody can take that freedom away. It is completely reasonable to basically only use free software. The only non-free software I have at the moment is probably Flash, and that's becoming increasingly less needed every day. Additionally, a lot of programmers get paid to work on open source already--even my current internship involves writing open source software. Additionally, a lot of developers work on software that does not get distributed as a product--they're being paid to solve a problem for some business rather than being paid for a copy of some software they wrote. So really, the reason it's easy for developers to ask this is because it works for us already.
- cynicalkane 14y ago
  Speak for yourself. I develop in IntelliJ and use a Mac, and so do many other "software people". I pay for this stuff because it's simply better, to my tastes, than the alternatives. They might not be better to you, and I have no problem with that. Live, let live. There's nothing wrong with paying for stuff that you want. There is something wrong in stealing (okay, pirating) stuff you want for free. I don't understand why this is controversial, and I do not believe in a fantasy world where everything is free. Ever since there was civilization, there's been no free lunch.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    If I tell you that there's plenty of "free open source software" running your Mac and that IntelliJ has open sourced their core Java IDE what'll you do? Poke yourself in the eye? (My comment made more sense before the parent was edited)
    - cynicalkane 14y ago
      The most useful parts of IntelliJ require a license at $200-500 a pop. Furthermore, the open source part of IntelliJ wasn't created by a charity, and wasn't released with charity in mind.
      - tikhonj 14y ago
        The point isn't about charity or not paying for software, it's about not having unnecessary copyright restrictions. So the fact that it "wasn't released with charity in mind" does not matter--it's a good thing, in fact! The point isn't to have all programs released by "charities" but just to limit copyright.
        cynicalkane 14y ago
        I don't think you get it. IntelliJ can afford to release open source software to acquire enterprise customers later on because those customers pay. If IntelliJ saw the same attrition rate at BigCorps as musicians saw with their albums, they wouldn't have a business. So we're lucky to have deep pockets paying for software for us... you can't really have that with a lot of other industries, or even with a lot of categories of software. Where's the World of Warcraft Open Source Edition?
        ktizo 14y ago
        Where's the World of Warcraft Open Source Edition? ummm, here maybe? - http://www.arcemu.org/about.php http://www.arcemu.org/about.php

tikhonj 14y ago

I think it's easy for software people to say this for the opposite reason: we are much less dependent on restrictive software than most people, and certainly less dependent on it than on similarly restrictive music or movies. All the best developer tools (Linux, Emacs, compilers...) are entirely free. They even go beyond simply being free to access--you are free to do whatever you want with them, and, moreover, there are guarantees for a lot that nobody can take that freedom away. It is completely reasonable to basically only use free software. The only non-free software I have at the moment is probably Flash, and that's becoming increasingly less needed every day. Additionally, a lot of programmers get paid to work on open source already--even my current internship involves writing open source software. Additionally, a lot of developers work on software that does not get distributed as a product--they're being paid to solve a problem for some business rather than being paid for a copy of some software they wrote. So really, the reason it's easy for developers to ask this is because it works for us already.

cynicalkane 14y ago
Speak for yourself. I develop in IntelliJ and use a Mac, and so do many other "software people". I pay for this stuff because it's simply better, to my tastes, than the alternatives. They might not be better to you, and I have no problem with that. Live, let live. There's nothing wrong with paying for stuff that you want. There is something wrong in stealing (okay, pirating) stuff you want for free. I don't understand why this is controversial, and I do not believe in a fantasy world where everything is free. Ever since there was civilization, there's been no free lunch.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  If I tell you that there's plenty of "free open source software" running your Mac and that IntelliJ has open sourced their core Java IDE what'll you do? Poke yourself in the eye? (My comment made more sense before the parent was edited)
  - cynicalkane 14y ago
    The most useful parts of IntelliJ require a license at $200-500 a pop. Furthermore, the open source part of IntelliJ wasn't created by a charity, and wasn't released with charity in mind.
    - tikhonj 14y ago
      The point isn't about charity or not paying for software, it's about not having unnecessary copyright restrictions. So the fact that it "wasn't released with charity in mind" does not matter--it's a good thing, in fact! The point isn't to have all programs released by "charities" but just to limit copyright.
      - cynicalkane 14y ago
        I don't think you get it. IntelliJ can afford to release open source software to acquire enterprise customers later on because those customers pay. If IntelliJ saw the same attrition rate at BigCorps as musicians saw with their albums, they wouldn't have a business. So we're lucky to have deep pockets paying for software for us... you can't really have that with a lot of other industries, or even with a lot of categories of software. Where's the World of Warcraft Open Source Edition?
        ktizo 14y ago
        Where's the World of Warcraft Open Source Edition? ummm, here maybe? - http://www.arcemu.org/about.php http://www.arcemu.org/about.php