3 ms·

"A fundamental weakness in the free software argument is that it lacks a solid, broadly applicable proposal for remunerating the effort of software engineers."

"A fundamental weakness in the free software argument is that it lacks a solid, broadly applicable proposal for remunerating the effort of software engineers." Quick counterexample: the many thousands of programmers whose job is to adapt or maintain free software for the organizations that use it. That includes people working for small companies, large companies, the government (civilian and military), non-profits, political campaigns, etc., etc., etc. It is almost never the case that any software package meets all its intended users' needs, and someone needs to adapt the software when that happens. "without a clear mechanism for producing free software it's little more than a letter to santa claus" Clearly such a mechanism exists, as free software is very important and widely used. "My impression is that FSF tends to focus on volunteerism and heroics" Hm... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

abalone 13y ago
That bit from GNU on charging whatever you want for distribution of free software is, frankly, a disingenuous argument. Ask any book or music publisher: you can't expect to profit much from distribution if you can always get the same thing for free next door. If you get anything, it pretty much amounts to a donation. I think we all know that here. Yes, you're right that there are organizations that subsidize free software development. But this is not a broadly applicable mechanism, in the commercial sector at least. Not every commercial company can pursue a leveraged approach. This is exactly why I suggested a government-funded direction. Free software is certainly widely used, but it pales in comparison to non-free software. Hence the previous poster's complaint about the lack of a competitive free Google Docs, AWS, etc.
- eddiedunn 13y ago
  "Ask any book or music publisher: you can't expect to profit much from distribution if you can always get the same thing for free next door. If you get anything, it pretty much amounts to a donation." Lies. Using music as an example, look at Spotify (or Itunes or whatever) as an example vs. downloading mp3s for free. I'm aware this is anecdotal evidence, but I haven't downloaded any music for years due to Spotify being so convenient to use. Neither have any of the people I know. I strongly believe that given a superior distribution model, money will follow.

abalone 13y ago

That bit from GNU on charging whatever you want for distribution of free software is, frankly, a disingenuous argument. Ask any book or music publisher: you can't expect to profit much from distribution if you can always get the same thing for free next door. If you get anything, it pretty much amounts to a donation. I think we all know that here. Yes, you're right that there are organizations that subsidize free software development. But this is not a broadly applicable mechanism, in the commercial sector at least. Not every commercial company can pursue a leveraged approach. This is exactly why I suggested a government-funded direction. Free software is certainly widely used, but it pales in comparison to non-free software. Hence the previous poster's complaint about the lack of a competitive free Google Docs, AWS, etc.

eddiedunn 13y ago
"Ask any book or music publisher: you can't expect to profit much from distribution if you can always get the same thing for free next door. If you get anything, it pretty much amounts to a donation." Lies. Using music as an example, look at Spotify (or Itunes or whatever) as an example vs. downloading mp3s for free. I'm aware this is anecdotal evidence, but I haven't downloaded any music for years due to Spotify being so convenient to use. Neither have any of the people I know. I strongly believe that given a superior distribution model, money will follow.