2 ms·

Open Source never meant having to give your software away for free, it was always free as in speech. In that you could see the crap you got and change it if you

Open Source never meant having to give your software away for free, it was always free as in speech. In that you could see the crap you got and change it if you wanted to. But you're right I'm sure that if there hadn't been the GCC there wouldn've been a ton of competing compilers. I'm sure that it was the existence of Apache that ruined computing and brought about the enshittification of the web not MS trying to force everyone to cater to IE and then Google doing the same with Chrome, it's all just because of that evil Open Source.

applfanboysbgon 14d ago
> Open Source never meant having to give your software away for free, it was always free as in speech. Sure, sure. And how exactly is software not also free-as-in-beer when any consumer can just download it themselves? > if there hadn't been the GCC there wouldn've been a ton of competing compilers. As I already noted in reply to your sibling comment, which you conveniently chose to ignore, every single one of those competing compilers bar one is funded by big tech. You can count the number of compiler developers who make a living without being funded by big tech, in the entire world, on your hands. GCC development is itself supported by big tech. > Google doing the same with Chrome, it's all just because of that evil Open Source. Do you need to be reminded that Chromium is open-source software? There is no market for competition to Chrome because no browser developer could compete with "free". Firefox is open-source and also propped up by billions in Google funding. There are zero consumer-viable browsers that are not just a Chromium or Firefox reskin. You even brought up IE, which is an example of the exact principle I'm talking about. It wasn't open-source, but, same as open-source software, it was free, and this big tech-funded free software killed its paid competitor (Netscape). This was a huge deal at the time, enough for the US government to get involved in antitrust. Then MS got let off with a gentle warning, everybody shrugged their shoulders, developed amnesia, and decided actually it's great if we let 5 or so tech monopolies undercut all of their competitors with 'free' software and solidify complete control of the market.
- Suzuran 11d ago
  Netscape died because we all hated it. Back when Apache didn't exist yet, we were forced to run Netscape's server. (Even if Apache did exist, we didn't have the $20K per-seat license fee for DEC's C compiler so we wouldn't have been able to compile it anyway). Netscape's license terms were such that we had to open our books to them. They would read through all of our transactions and decide how much we would have to pay them that term. If they saw transactions to a party they didn't like, they would charge us more. They had no competition in our space, so they could name their terms. There was no competition and they liked it that way. When Apache became available we switched to it out of spite.
rcxdude 14d ago
The freedoms that the GPL gives to users in effect means giving your software away for free (because any single one of them is allowed to republish it openly). I do think there is a possible alternative model which gives most of the user freedom Stallman cared about but which doesn't produce this (something along the lines of being able to view the source code of software you buy, as well as modify it, but only being allowed to share the modifications with others who have bought the software, or only being allowed to distribute the patches as opposed to republishing the full software), but this hasn't really been tried as far as I know.
adithyassekhar 14d ago
I guess back when software only came in disks that sounded good business wise. Today if I can get your source I’ll compile it, price a bit lower and publish it in a few hours.

applfanboysbgon 14d ago

> Open Source never meant having to give your software away for free, it was always free as in speech. Sure, sure. And how exactly is software not also free-as-in-beer when any consumer can just download it themselves? > if there hadn't been the GCC there wouldn've been a ton of competing compilers. As I already noted in reply to your sibling comment, which you conveniently chose to ignore, every single one of those competing compilers bar one is funded by big tech. You can count the number of compiler developers who make a living without being funded by big tech, in the entire world, on your hands. GCC development is itself supported by big tech. > Google doing the same with Chrome, it's all just because of that evil Open Source. Do you need to be reminded that Chromium is open-source software? There is no market for competition to Chrome because no browser developer could compete with "free". Firefox is open-source and also propped up by billions in Google funding. There are zero consumer-viable browsers that are not just a Chromium or Firefox reskin. You even brought up IE, which is an example of the exact principle I'm talking about. It wasn't open-source, but, same as open-source software, it was free, and this big tech-funded free software killed its paid competitor (Netscape). This was a huge deal at the time, enough for the US government to get involved in antitrust. Then MS got let off with a gentle warning, everybody shrugged their shoulders, developed amnesia, and decided actually it's great if we let 5 or so tech monopolies undercut all of their competitors with 'free' software and solidify complete control of the market.

Suzuran 11d ago
Netscape died because we all hated it. Back when Apache didn't exist yet, we were forced to run Netscape's server. (Even if Apache did exist, we didn't have the $20K per-seat license fee for DEC's C compiler so we wouldn't have been able to compile it anyway). Netscape's license terms were such that we had to open our books to them. They would read through all of our transactions and decide how much we would have to pay them that term. If they saw transactions to a party they didn't like, they would charge us more. They had no competition in our space, so they could name their terms. There was no competition and they liked it that way. When Apache became available we switched to it out of spite.

rcxdude 14d ago

The freedoms that the GPL gives to users in effect means giving your software away for free (because any single one of them is allowed to republish it openly). I do think there is a possible alternative model which gives most of the user freedom Stallman cared about but which doesn't produce this (something along the lines of being able to view the source code of software you buy, as well as modify it, but only being allowed to share the modifications with others who have bought the software, or only being allowed to distribute the patches as opposed to republishing the full software), but this hasn't really been tried as far as I know.

adithyassekhar 14d ago

I guess back when software only came in disks that sounded good business wise. Today if I can get your source I’ll compile it, price a bit lower and publish it in a few hours.