3 ms·

So one of the reasons I chose to modify zentu.net's tagline from a "FOSS"-oriented tagline to an "OSS"-oriented one is precisely that . . . I admire Stallman's

by Sandman 17y ago

So one of the reasons I chose to modify zentu.net's tagline from a "FOSS"-oriented tagline to an "OSS"-oriented one is precisely that . . . I admire Stallman's and Torvalds' benevolences and all, but people cannot work for free. You do realize that "free software" doesn't necessarily mean "free of charge". As Stallman often said, when thinking of free software, think in terms of "free speech", not "free beer". You can, under GPL, charge the people for your software. As long as you give them the right to see and modify your code, that software is free.

loup-vaillant 17y ago
As you said, not necessarily. More often than not, however, "free software" does mean "free of charge". You can sell support, but that's it. The reason is simple: if you try to distribute your software for a fee, someone else will do so for nothing. If nobody does, it probably means you hardly sell any copy.[1] Stallman managed to sell emacs thanks to the lack of global network (imho). One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software. You can even charge more, because the freedom you give to your client may cost you money —compared to the classic proprietary vendor lock-in. [1] Any data on this?
- bad_user 17y ago
  > One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software. I've worked as a software consultant for years, making turn-key software and modifications to existing infrastructure and support, and all of that. The thing is ... it's not fun. If it's not your product, you don't have the time, the energy, the resources to put much love in the products you're working on. If you're working on custom software, customers only want to pay the minimal price that will get their needs solved. If it's support for an open-source software you're working on, if that software is too good, or is of no interest to companies, then you're not going to get hired. Consulting services really take the fun out of programming, that's why I'm a proponent of a mixed model ... keep your advantages proprietary, open-source the rest.

by Sandman 17y ago

loup-vaillant 17y ago

As you said, not necessarily. More often than not, however, "free software" does mean "free of charge". You can sell support, but that's it. The reason is simple: if you try to distribute your software for a fee, someone else will do so for nothing. If nobody does, it probably means you hardly sell any copy.[1] Stallman managed to sell emacs thanks to the lack of global network (imho). One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software. You can even charge more, because the freedom you give to your client may cost you money —compared to the classic proprietary vendor lock-in. [1] Any data on this?

bad_user 17y ago
> One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software. I've worked as a software consultant for years, making turn-key software and modifications to existing infrastructure and support, and all of that. The thing is ... it's not fun. If it's not your product, you don't have the time, the energy, the resources to put much love in the products you're working on. If you're working on custom software, customers only want to pay the minimal price that will get their needs solved. If it's support for an open-source software you're working on, if that software is too good, or is of no interest to companies, then you're not going to get hired. Consulting services really take the fun out of programming, that's why I'm a proponent of a mixed model ... keep your advantages proprietary, open-source the rest.