4 ms·

>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

>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.
      - flatline3 14y ago
        RedHat doesn't sell consumer software.
        rbanffy 14y ago
        Right. They don't sell software - they sell expert advice. You sell software to uninformed users. I can see the difference.
        flatline3 14y ago
        Consumer software that requires significant 'support' would be bad consumer software.
        ekianjo 14y ago
        Do you consider Windows a consumer software or not? I see pretty much a big need of support needed for that one. Just look at all the forums dedicated to solving its shortcomings.
- tikhonj 14y ago
  > If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software This is true of most anything, but doesn't stop consumer protection laws from existing. Moreover, most people agree that consumer protection laws are reasonable and necessary.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    Most consumer protection laws have to do with curtailing dishonest or misrepresentative behaviors -- eg, selling a defective product, misrepresenting product features, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection#United_Stat...
    - tikhonj 14y ago
      Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea. However, my real point was just that people's being able to not buy your product is no defense: it doesn't work in consumer protection cases and shouldn't work here. Moreover, consumer protection isn't just about dishonesty: even if you represent your product perfectly accurately, you still can't sell certain (mostly dangerous) things. For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it.
      - flatline3 14y ago
        > Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea. It's not defective according to the people buying it. That's what matters. > For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it. This analogy is not particularly applicable to consumer software, and applies mainly to liability. A lawyer would need to step in here, as I'm guessing neither of us are experts in consumer product liability.
        tikhonj 14y ago
- rbanffy 14y ago
  > If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software. Would you please expose yourself so your customers can know who's trampling on their freedoms? Or will you remain hidden behind a nickname?
  - flatline3 14y ago
    > Or will you remain hidden behind a nickname? Yes, I will remain anonymous. What does it matter? Non-GPL software licensing is hardly a rarity, and if customers care, they can use 'Free' software.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    Maybe he works for Google. Or are they magically excused like Apple is?
cookiecaper 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. While you technically can sell free software, you can't make much of a profit off of it in the current climate. Red Hat et al DO NOT make money off the software -- they make the money off incidentals like support and consulting. The software is a prerequisite, but if Linux went away, Red Hat could survive by switching its techs and consultant to whatever replaced it. People who make OSS do not make money off of their software directly. This happens because Stallman believes that no creator should be granted a limited monopoly over the distribution of his product. This is a completely reasonable "freedom" to disavow; copyright has been around hundreds of years and is explicitly authorized in the US Constitution. You can easily argue that copyright has gone out of control, but the GPL essentially mandates removal of the profit-bearing portions of copyright by legally releasing your privilege to control distribution (and thus become the sole supplier). Perhaps this would work better in a world where copyright didn't exist at all; then there'd be no exclusive right and the numbers wouldn't skew so deeply negative as compared to proprietary options. Personally I fully believe computer users have a right to a readable copy of the code they expect to execute on their machines. I simply do not believe that there is a moral imperative that software vendors allow anyone and everyone to redistribute that package. If a vendor chooses to do this, that is fine and good, but I don't believe it's immoral to try to make some money developing complex software by restricting licensees and utilizing copyright law to a reasonable extent (i.e., as a limited monopoly on distribution intended to promote useful progress in science and the arts).
- slowpoke 14y ago
  >I simply do not believe that there is a moral imperative that software vendors allow anyone and everyone to redistribute that package. The moral imperative here is not that they need to allow it - it's that they can and should not be able to forbid it. You can't force someone to share something, but neither can you stop others from doing so.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    This is an argument against copyright. I think it's a rather extreme position. Copyright is useful as a concept even if it's gotten completely out of control. The issue with the GPL is that it takes the most critical component of copyright away -- the ability to control the distribution of your work in any meaningful degree (e.g., by charging money for access to it). You can tinker with the copyright code to say that works transformed away from direct human readability (i.e. things that require a machine to be understood, like binary compiled code) are not copyrightable, requiring everyone to release source code, etc., but the premise of freedom 2 is neither self-evident or inviolable. In the real world, people have to make money, and without some form of intellectual property law, any digitized work immediately has an infinite supply, which will always usurp any level of demand no matter how significant, making it impossible to profit off of the digitized work directly. I don't believe there's a moral requirement to allow everyone access to the fruits of your labor for free. If the software generates value for the end-user, it seems fair to expect some recompense for the work you've done. Why do you believe it is unfair to actually make money off the product you build? Do we see people giving grills away for free and attempting to make a living off of "selling support" for that grill?

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.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      RedHat doesn't sell consumer software.
      - rbanffy 14y ago
        Right. They don't sell software - they sell expert advice. You sell software to uninformed users. I can see the difference.
        flatline3 14y ago
        Consumer software that requires significant 'support' would be bad consumer software.
        ekianjo 14y ago
        Do you consider Windows a consumer software or not? I see pretty much a big need of support needed for that one. Just look at all the forums dedicated to solving its shortcomings.
tikhonj 14y ago
> If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software This is true of most anything, but doesn't stop consumer protection laws from existing. Moreover, most people agree that consumer protection laws are reasonable and necessary.
- flatline3 14y ago
  Most consumer protection laws have to do with curtailing dishonest or misrepresentative behaviors -- eg, selling a defective product, misrepresenting product features, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection#United_Stat...
  - tikhonj 14y ago
    Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea. However, my real point was just that people's being able to not buy your product is no defense: it doesn't work in consumer protection cases and shouldn't work here. Moreover, consumer protection isn't just about dishonesty: even if you represent your product perfectly accurately, you still can't sell certain (mostly dangerous) things. For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      > Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea. It's not defective according to the people buying it. That's what matters. > For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it. This analogy is not particularly applicable to consumer software, and applies mainly to liability. A lawyer would need to step in here, as I'm guessing neither of us are experts in consumer product liability.
      - tikhonj 14y ago
rbanffy 14y ago
> If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software. Would you please expose yourself so your customers can know who's trampling on their freedoms? Or will you remain hidden behind a nickname?
- flatline3 14y ago
  > Or will you remain hidden behind a nickname? Yes, I will remain anonymous. What does it matter? Non-GPL software licensing is hardly a rarity, and if customers care, they can use 'Free' software.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  Maybe he works for Google. Or are they magically excused like Apple is?

cookiecaper 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. While you technically can sell free software, you can't make much of a profit off of it in the current climate. Red Hat et al DO NOT make money off the software -- they make the money off incidentals like support and consulting. The software is a prerequisite, but if Linux went away, Red Hat could survive by switching its techs and consultant to whatever replaced it. People who make OSS do not make money off of their software directly. This happens because Stallman believes that no creator should be granted a limited monopoly over the distribution of his product. This is a completely reasonable "freedom" to disavow; copyright has been around hundreds of years and is explicitly authorized in the US Constitution. You can easily argue that copyright has gone out of control, but the GPL essentially mandates removal of the profit-bearing portions of copyright by legally releasing your privilege to control distribution (and thus become the sole supplier). Perhaps this would work better in a world where copyright didn't exist at all; then there'd be no exclusive right and the numbers wouldn't skew so deeply negative as compared to proprietary options. Personally I fully believe computer users have a right to a readable copy of the code they expect to execute on their machines. I simply do not believe that there is a moral imperative that software vendors allow anyone and everyone to redistribute that package. If a vendor chooses to do this, that is fine and good, but I don't believe it's immoral to try to make some money developing complex software by restricting licensees and utilizing copyright law to a reasonable extent (i.e., as a limited monopoly on distribution intended to promote useful progress in science and the arts).

slowpoke 14y ago
>I simply do not believe that there is a moral imperative that software vendors allow anyone and everyone to redistribute that package. The moral imperative here is not that they need to allow it - it's that they can and should not be able to forbid it. You can't force someone to share something, but neither can you stop others from doing so.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  This is an argument against copyright. I think it's a rather extreme position. Copyright is useful as a concept even if it's gotten completely out of control. The issue with the GPL is that it takes the most critical component of copyright away -- the ability to control the distribution of your work in any meaningful degree (e.g., by charging money for access to it). You can tinker with the copyright code to say that works transformed away from direct human readability (i.e. things that require a machine to be understood, like binary compiled code) are not copyrightable, requiring everyone to release source code, etc., but the premise of freedom 2 is neither self-evident or inviolable. In the real world, people have to make money, and without some form of intellectual property law, any digitized work immediately has an infinite supply, which will always usurp any level of demand no matter how significant, making it impossible to profit off of the digitized work directly. I don't believe there's a moral requirement to allow everyone access to the fruits of your labor for free. If the software generates value for the end-user, it seems fair to expect some recompense for the work you've done. Why do you believe it is unfair to actually make money off the product you build? Do we see people giving grills away for free and attempting to make a living off of "selling support" for that grill?