4 ms·

> There is no good reason to deny anyone the four basic Freedoms. Sure there is. First good reason: Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of softwa

> There is no good reason to deny anyone the four basic Freedoms. Sure there is. First good reason: Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of software licenses, which is a tried and true method for producing better quality consumer software than we've ever seen from OSS products. > Too bad people didn't listen, continue to trample everyone's Freedoms under their foots for their petty selfish greed while having the audacity to assert their actions to be perfectly ethical. I write closed-source software, and sell it to people that want to buy it. If they prefer OSS solutions, that's fine -- they're under no obligation to buy. They want what I'm selling. If making a decent wage while giving people what they want is evil, well, call me Satan. > ... it is the duty of every good man or woman to do anything in their power to stop it, lest evil will triumph. Yeah, this right here? This is why I can't stand the GPLers.

slowpoke 14y ago
>Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of software licenses, which is a tried and true method for producing better quality consumer software than we've ever seen from OSS products. a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software. Your argument is invalid. b) "better quality [...] than ever seen from OSS products" is bullcrap, and you know it. There's a few select niche markets where proprietary software is still entrenched (eg, Graphic Design), but this too will change. Also, if you don't like something or you feel like a feature is missing, stop complaining and start contributing. >I write closed-source software, and sell it to people that want to buy it. And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech). >If making a decent wage while giving people what they want is evil, well, call me Satan. Making a decent wage with unethical practices is still evil. The circumstances do not matter. You're essentially saying that the ability to turn a profit somehow excuses wrongdoing. It doesn't. >Yeah, this right here? This is why I can't stand the GPLers. Hate us all you want, in the end we are right and we'll eventually win. :)
- flatline3 14y ago
  > a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software. Your argument is invalid. It works now, and as of yet, there's been no better model demonstrated, despite no lack of trying. > And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech). If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software.
  - slowpoke 14y ago
    >If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software. They could most likely not make an informed choice, because you do not educate them about denying them their freedom. And still there is no argument to do it.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      > They could most likely not make an informed choice, because you do not educate them about denying them their freedom. Users don't care about their "freedom", and neither do I, so why is educating them my problem? Also, you're not giving users credit. I'm informed, and yet I still choose to buy Mac OS X, iPhones, and even DRM'd media (iTunes video rentals). > And still there is no argument to do it. I don't see any other viable economically proven method to fund our consumer software development.
      - ekianjo 14y ago
        > I don't see any other viable economically proven method to fund our consumer software development. Apparently you have never heard of RedHat. You missed a billion dollar company. They release their software for free, as CentOS, as well. But they sell costumer support on top of that. It WORKS.
        14y ago

slowpoke 14y ago

>Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of software licenses, which is a tried and true method for producing better quality consumer software than we've ever seen from OSS products. a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software. Your argument is invalid. b) "better quality [...] than ever seen from OSS products" is bullcrap, and you know it. There's a few select niche markets where proprietary software is still entrenched (eg, Graphic Design), but this too will change. Also, if you don't like something or you feel like a feature is missing, stop complaining and start contributing. >I write closed-source software, and sell it to people that want to buy it. And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech). >If making a decent wage while giving people what they want is evil, well, call me Satan. Making a decent wage with unethical practices is still evil. The circumstances do not matter. You're essentially saying that the ability to turn a profit somehow excuses wrongdoing. It doesn't. >Yeah, this right here? This is why I can't stand the GPLers. Hate us all you want, in the end we are right and we'll eventually win. :)

flatline3 14y ago
> a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software. Your argument is invalid. It works now, and as of yet, there's been no better model demonstrated, despite no lack of trying. > And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech). If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  >If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software. They could most likely not make an informed choice, because you do not educate them about denying them their freedom. And still there is no argument to do it.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    > They could most likely not make an informed choice, because you do not educate them about denying them their freedom. Users don't care about their "freedom", and neither do I, so why is educating them my problem? Also, you're not giving users credit. I'm informed, and yet I still choose to buy Mac OS X, iPhones, and even DRM'd media (iTunes video rentals). > And still there is no argument to do it. I don't see any other viable economically proven method to fund our consumer software development.
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      > I don't see any other viable economically proven method to fund our consumer software development. Apparently you have never heard of RedHat. You missed a billion dollar company. They release their software for free, as CentOS, as well. But they sell costumer support on top of that. It WORKS.
      - 14y ago