4 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.
        flatline3 14y ago
        Hmm. Should Rovio sell Angry Birds support contracts? Windows occupies a rather unique market position of ubiquity and scale, and its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and runtimes, Metro, etc. I'm not a Windows expert, but it's pretty undeniable that Apple and MS pour bucket loads of cash into their respective platforms. Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on closed-source software. Underneath it all is closed source hardware (like those graphics chipsets and proprietary processor cores). Nobody tends to complain about that, since spending millions on hardware development is out of reach. Making use of software source code is equally out of reach to nearly all users: thus, they just don't care.
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?

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.
        flatline3 14y ago
        Hmm. Should Rovio sell Angry Birds support contracts? Windows occupies a rather unique market position of ubiquity and scale, and its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and runtimes, Metro, etc. I'm not a Windows expert, but it's pretty undeniable that Apple and MS pour bucket loads of cash into their respective platforms. Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on closed-source software. Underneath it all is closed source hardware (like those graphics chipsets and proprietary processor cores). Nobody tends to complain about that, since spending millions on hardware development is out of reach. Making use of software source code is equally out of reach to nearly all users: thus, they just don't care.

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?