3 ms·

> Open source loses this war because proprietary devices are streamlined. "Open source" didn't loose because it didn't fight anything. It was exactly "Open sou

> Open source loses this war because proprietary devices are streamlined. "Open source" didn't loose because it didn't fight anything. It was exactly "Open source" that enabled Google to dominate the smartphone landscape. FSF and many other have been warning us for decades that Android been open source didn't matter because firmware, play store and many other components of Android were proprietary. People gave a shit to them and now do you want to blame them for the results? The diversity of projects were not and are not the problem. The problem is people that do nothing and only criticize.

positron26 1y ago
> It was exactly "Open source" that enabled Google to dominate the smartphone landscape. The financial interest may have preferred a licensing model, but either way, it was the financial interest that actually built a ton of this software. Linux isn't unpopular with businesses because of its license model. It is healthy because it found ways to plug into financial interest. The FSF will always push licensing models while ignoring financial interest, basically abandoning users and businesses. There are how many billion smartphone users on Earth, and the FSF expects volunteer programmers and volunteer donations recruited on one of the worst websites I have ever seen to carry the load? Give me a break.
- Ajedi32 1y ago
  This is the one big flaw I've seen in Stallman's philosophy on software. He's been thoroughly proven right I think about the dangers of closed-source (unmodifiable) software to user freedom. But I think his insistence that Free Software also needs to be freely redistributable with no payment to the author in order to be Free has greatly limited the resources available to build such software. The FSF will argue "you can totally sell Free Software"[1], which ignores the fact that without any restrictions on distribution/copying, the fair market value of said Free Software rapidly drops to ~$0. It's not a viable business model. Companies have built alternate business models around soliciting donations, or selling support or non-free add-ons to Free software, but selling Free Software itself (at least as the FSF defines it) doesn't actually work in practice. (You can do it obviously, but it's effectively just a different way of soliciting donations at that point; the fair market value of the software is ~$0.) [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
  - jraph 1y ago
    > It's not a viable business model. > You can do it obviously, but it's effectively just a different way of soliciting donations at that point; the fair market value of the software is ~$0 It is a viable business model. At XWiki SAS¹, they do this for their "Pro apps" [1] which are paid extensions for XWiki targeted to businesses and that are free software (under the LGPLv2 license) with license checks. Businesses won't bother removing the license checks, it's easy enough to pay, and far easier than donating. It is not XWiki SAS's only business strategy nor the one that brings the most money, but still, that's not a possibility to discard too fast. You can also find paid open source Android apps on the Play store, and people (individuals!) will totally pay for them even if you can have them for free from F-Droid, like OsmAnd+ [2] or Conversations [3]. [1] https://store.xwiki.com/ https://store.xwiki.com/ [2] https://osmand.net/ https://osmand.net/ [3] https://conversations.im/ https://conversations.im/ ¹ I work for them
    - Ajedi32 1y ago
      As I said that's just another way of soliciting donations; it relies entirely on consumer goodwill (or ignorance/poor accessibility of the free option). There are limits to how big you can get with that (or how much you can charge) before someone just undercuts you with a fork. I'm not saying it's impossible to survive with that model; lots of organization survive on donations. But you're not gonna be able to build the Free Software equivalent of Microsoft or Google on donations. That said, I think doing that with business software is a particularly interesting case because it allows low level employees to justify running a donation through the regular software purchasing process without raising too many eyebrows if they care to. I've seen a few other projects with similar models.
      - fsflover 1y ago
        > that's just another way of soliciting donations; it relies entirely on consumer goodwill (or ignorance/poor accessibility of the free option). That's almost like saying that Netflix relies on the consumers' goodwill, since pirating is too easy. In reality, people pay for convenience in getting what they want.
a456463 1y ago
PREACH. Sorry. I felt heard and seen!

positron26 1y ago

> It was exactly "Open source" that enabled Google to dominate the smartphone landscape. The financial interest may have preferred a licensing model, but either way, it was the financial interest that actually built a ton of this software. Linux isn't unpopular with businesses because of its license model. It is healthy because it found ways to plug into financial interest. The FSF will always push licensing models while ignoring financial interest, basically abandoning users and businesses. There are how many billion smartphone users on Earth, and the FSF expects volunteer programmers and volunteer donations recruited on one of the worst websites I have ever seen to carry the load? Give me a break.

Ajedi32 1y ago
This is the one big flaw I've seen in Stallman's philosophy on software. He's been thoroughly proven right I think about the dangers of closed-source (unmodifiable) software to user freedom. But I think his insistence that Free Software also needs to be freely redistributable with no payment to the author in order to be Free has greatly limited the resources available to build such software. The FSF will argue "you can totally sell Free Software"[1], which ignores the fact that without any restrictions on distribution/copying, the fair market value of said Free Software rapidly drops to ~$0. It's not a viable business model. Companies have built alternate business models around soliciting donations, or selling support or non-free add-ons to Free software, but selling Free Software itself (at least as the FSF defines it) doesn't actually work in practice. (You can do it obviously, but it's effectively just a different way of soliciting donations at that point; the fair market value of the software is ~$0.) [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- jraph 1y ago
  > It's not a viable business model. > You can do it obviously, but it's effectively just a different way of soliciting donations at that point; the fair market value of the software is ~$0 It is a viable business model. At XWiki SAS¹, they do this for their "Pro apps" [1] which are paid extensions for XWiki targeted to businesses and that are free software (under the LGPLv2 license) with license checks. Businesses won't bother removing the license checks, it's easy enough to pay, and far easier than donating. It is not XWiki SAS's only business strategy nor the one that brings the most money, but still, that's not a possibility to discard too fast. You can also find paid open source Android apps on the Play store, and people (individuals!) will totally pay for them even if you can have them for free from F-Droid, like OsmAnd+ [2] or Conversations [3]. [1] https://store.xwiki.com/ https://store.xwiki.com/ [2] https://osmand.net/ https://osmand.net/ [3] https://conversations.im/ https://conversations.im/ ¹ I work for them
  - Ajedi32 1y ago
    As I said that's just another way of soliciting donations; it relies entirely on consumer goodwill (or ignorance/poor accessibility of the free option). There are limits to how big you can get with that (or how much you can charge) before someone just undercuts you with a fork. I'm not saying it's impossible to survive with that model; lots of organization survive on donations. But you're not gonna be able to build the Free Software equivalent of Microsoft or Google on donations. That said, I think doing that with business software is a particularly interesting case because it allows low level employees to justify running a donation through the regular software purchasing process without raising too many eyebrows if they care to. I've seen a few other projects with similar models.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      > that's just another way of soliciting donations; it relies entirely on consumer goodwill (or ignorance/poor accessibility of the free option). That's almost like saying that Netflix relies on the consumers' goodwill, since pirating is too easy. In reality, people pay for convenience in getting what they want.

a456463 1y ago

PREACH. Sorry. I felt heard and seen!