3 ms·

> So it's Free as in speech, not as in beer. See how in my comment I use 4 synonyms for "free", including "gratis"? That was not just trying to sound cool. Tha

> So it's Free as in speech, not as in beer. See how in my comment I use 4 synonyms for "free", including "gratis"? That was not just trying to sound cool. That was trying (and evidently, failing, given you're not the only one) to pre-empt this exact point. > It's entirely possible to sell free software. This is much more controversial in the FOSS space than it seems to outsiders. There is the obvious problem that one of the Freedoms involves the ability to take your purchased copy and give it away 'gratis' to everyone else, thus undercutting the market for the original author. And this begs the question: Can I practically charge money for the freedoms? Must it be gratis? It would be relatively easy to write a license with a royalty fee. Every time you distribute a copy of the fork, you must pay the original author. This would be a cromulent way to get around the piracy problem. Except it is deeply controversial. To the point where even the FSF tries to play games around "selling the software" versus "selling the service of providing a download of the software". In practice, no you can't really sell Free Software. Just look at all the startups that were Open Source and immediately shut that down when the infinite free venture capital ran out. > Non-commercial actually worsens the free-rider situation imo. I don't count it as Free Software at all. I simply do not care about the designation of "Free Software". It sucks and has painted itself into a corner. Modern policing of it's meaning (especially by the OSI which hilariously tries to pretend that "Open Source" is subject to FOSS definitions) is entirely just hypocrisy favouring the GPL. If you want to get paid, cash money, just fucking put it in the license. Use a user agreement like everyone else on the planet. If you want it to be Free, slap a 'gratis' license on there and don't get upset when companies don't give anything back.

pessimizer 2y ago
> This is much more controversial in the FOSS space than it seems to outsiders. Free software has been sold since the dawn of Free software, by the central figures of Free software. > There is the obvious problem that one of the Freedoms involves the ability to take your purchased copy and give it away 'gratis' to everyone else, thus undercutting the market for the original author. This is exactly why it is not at all controversial to sell FOSS. You can easily be undercut. If you're successful selling FOSS, it's because you've made it really easy for your customers, been really helpful to them, or because they want to pay you because they like you, probably because they know you're putting work in. Free not meaning "gratis" doesn't mean that you can't get software gratis, it means that I'm not required to give it to you gratis. This controversy is made up from whole cloth. I don't doubt that people are arguing about it, but neither person in that argument has any idea what they're talking about. They are people trying to ride the coattails of FOSS to get rich, as well they should (get rich in any ethical way you can.) But Open Source was a ploy to undercut Free software, and is operating just as intended, supplying corporations with free labor in return for nothing. If you don't want to be copyleft, and you don't want to be ripped off as OSS, just be proprietary. The reason people don't want to do this is either because the software is not good enough to compete, or they can't afford the marketing and infrastructure to sell or even give away a proprietary product. So they pretend there's this honor system called the spirit of open source where the entire world is meant to ignore the freedom that permissive licenses give until the authors have the time to get rich. When Amazon ignores the memo, they pretend it's the concept of Free Software that's to blame, or even for that matter the concept of Open Source. The problem is trying to benefit from the concept without actually believing in it, and failing. The point of Free Software is that people have access to the software that runs the machines that their lives depend on. The point of Open Source is to supply free labor to others in order to hopefully get attention, praise, or simply personal satisfaction. If neither of these things are what you're into, that's not something wrong with FOSS, and that's not something wrong with you. > I simply do not care about the designation of "Free Software". It sucks and has painted itself into a corner. Modern policing of it's meaning (especially by the OSI which hilariously tries to pretend that "Open Source" is subject to FOSS definitions) is entirely just hypocrisy favouring the GPL. These are two unrelated organizations with opposing philosophies. The reason OSI software is Free Software is because anybody can steal OSI licensed and do whatever they want with it, as long as they do some trivial things that the license requires, such as including a copy of the license, or possibly a credit for the author. The GPL is a restrictive license that obligates the people who distribute the software to many explicit and strict responsibilities that people are willing to sue you over. OSI licenses are not.
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago
  > You can easily be undercut. If you're successful selling FOSS, it's because you've made it really easy for your customers, been really helpful to them, or because they want to pay you because they like you, probably because they know you're putting work in. What you are mincing words about here is the fact that no, you are not selling software, you are receiving voluntary donations. It's the same rhetoric as always "Um akshually you can sell Free Software" when what is meant is "You can put it up for sale". I am not obliged to humour it, so I will not. > supplying corporations with free labor in return for nothing. As opposed to FOSS, which is currently ... Coping and Seething in this thread about receiving nothing in return. It ain't a ploy. We just don't care if corporations use it. > The problem is trying to benefit from the concept without actually believing in it, and failing. The point of Free Software is that people have access to the software that runs the machines that their lives depend on. The point of Open Source is to supply free labor to others in order to hopefully get attention, praise, or simply personal satisfaction. The word for that is "cult".
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    I think I'll politely back away from this debate, since it seems like you have an axe to grind. Meanwhile, I simply sell the service of 'Making Things That Don't Exist Yet.' Remarkably uncomplicated, and yes, people are willing to pay for that.

pessimizer 2y ago

> This is much more controversial in the FOSS space than it seems to outsiders. Free software has been sold since the dawn of Free software, by the central figures of Free software. > There is the obvious problem that one of the Freedoms involves the ability to take your purchased copy and give it away 'gratis' to everyone else, thus undercutting the market for the original author. This is exactly why it is not at all controversial to sell FOSS. You can easily be undercut. If you're successful selling FOSS, it's because you've made it really easy for your customers, been really helpful to them, or because they want to pay you because they like you, probably because they know you're putting work in. Free not meaning "gratis" doesn't mean that you can't get software gratis, it means that I'm not required to give it to you gratis. This controversy is made up from whole cloth. I don't doubt that people are arguing about it, but neither person in that argument has any idea what they're talking about. They are people trying to ride the coattails of FOSS to get rich, as well they should (get rich in any ethical way you can.) But Open Source was a ploy to undercut Free software, and is operating just as intended, supplying corporations with free labor in return for nothing. If you don't want to be copyleft, and you don't want to be ripped off as OSS, just be proprietary. The reason people don't want to do this is either because the software is not good enough to compete, or they can't afford the marketing and infrastructure to sell or even give away a proprietary product. So they pretend there's this honor system called the spirit of open source where the entire world is meant to ignore the freedom that permissive licenses give until the authors have the time to get rich. When Amazon ignores the memo, they pretend it's the concept of Free Software that's to blame, or even for that matter the concept of Open Source. The problem is trying to benefit from the concept without actually believing in it, and failing. The point of Free Software is that people have access to the software that runs the machines that their lives depend on. The point of Open Source is to supply free labor to others in order to hopefully get attention, praise, or simply personal satisfaction. If neither of these things are what you're into, that's not something wrong with FOSS, and that's not something wrong with you. > I simply do not care about the designation of "Free Software". It sucks and has painted itself into a corner. Modern policing of it's meaning (especially by the OSI which hilariously tries to pretend that "Open Source" is subject to FOSS definitions) is entirely just hypocrisy favouring the GPL. These are two unrelated organizations with opposing philosophies. The reason OSI software is Free Software is because anybody can steal OSI licensed and do whatever they want with it, as long as they do some trivial things that the license requires, such as including a copy of the license, or possibly a credit for the author. The GPL is a restrictive license that obligates the people who distribute the software to many explicit and strict responsibilities that people are willing to sue you over. OSI licenses are not.

ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> You can easily be undercut. If you're successful selling FOSS, it's because you've made it really easy for your customers, been really helpful to them, or because they want to pay you because they like you, probably because they know you're putting work in. What you are mincing words about here is the fact that no, you are not selling software, you are receiving voluntary donations. It's the same rhetoric as always "Um akshually you can sell Free Software" when what is meant is "You can put it up for sale". I am not obliged to humour it, so I will not. > supplying corporations with free labor in return for nothing. As opposed to FOSS, which is currently ... Coping and Seething in this thread about receiving nothing in return. It ain't a ploy. We just don't care if corporations use it. > The problem is trying to benefit from the concept without actually believing in it, and failing. The point of Free Software is that people have access to the software that runs the machines that their lives depend on. The point of Open Source is to supply free labor to others in order to hopefully get attention, praise, or simply personal satisfaction. The word for that is "cult".
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  I think I'll politely back away from this debate, since it seems like you have an axe to grind. Meanwhile, I simply sell the service of 'Making Things That Don't Exist Yet.' Remarkably uncomplicated, and yes, people are willing to pay for that.