Do Stallman and other freetards actually think developers shouldn't get paid for their work? Does he fly internationally for university lectures and then not get paid for it?
it's libre, not gratis
but i know this is bait
>>51565557
Stallman and his "constitches" believe that software developers could be paid via other means like online support (Redhat) or via paid donation like patrion.
Their beliefs and ideals will never be put into motion due to the models of modern capitolism.
Personally, It's not that I don't want them to occur... I just don't particularly care.
>>51565586
this isn't bait I'm just a retard who doesn't understand how the free software movement works, what's the difference between libre and gratis?
he believes software can cost as much as the developer thinks it should cost. as long as the software itself is still "free". im pretty sure he gets paid for lectures.
>>51565557
No he believes that you not wanting to release the source to your software is morally disgusting.
He doesn't care if you sell it, just so long as you release the source code too. Why you ask? So other people can learn from it!
Why anon, don't you know? It's your DUTY to all those newfag manual didacts out there for you to teach them how to program! It's your moral obligation, as a programmer who isn't pants on head retarded, to supply people with all the resources they need so everybody stop learning critical thinking and problem solving skills and everybody just becomes code monkeys!
Yay!
>MFW stallman is too retarded to know that reverse engineering is a valuable fucking skill that every self-respecting computer scientist and programmer should know
>Stallman doesn't even know how to install GNU XNOR Linux
>>51565557
Stallman like most libertarians is quite literally autistic and has trouble grasping humanity beyond mathematicians and algorithms.
>>51565624
He believes that the developer can charge for the program if he wants too but make it open source so people can view and improve the code
>>51565624
The english word "free" has two meanings.
One of them is referring to freedom, liberty (libre).
The other is referring to a lack of cost (gratis).
The FSF is about software that respects the users' freedom and community.
>>51565680
Why don't they respect the developer's freedom to do whatever the fuck they want?
>>51565649
This is the real flaw in the FSF's ideology.
His reasoning is that you can't use the "It's my code, I love it" because if a corporation offered you fucking millions for it you would sell it.
Stallman is an autistic lawyer, not a computer scientist.
It's impossible to program things without seeing other people's code first
>>51565649
>reverse engineer something
Oh anon, 99% of freetards are depressed loners with no real technical skill. They couldn't complete a task that complex and arduous if they were fucking paid for it.
80% of millenial programmers actually buy the "assembly is dead, just learn C" meme and have no actual idea how a computer works.
It's pretty fucking sad.
>>51565691
That's like saying people aren't free because they can't murder or otherwise harm other people without legal consequences.
Having the freedom to harm, subjugate, and abuse others isn't okay.
>>51565739
wow what a stellar argument well done heres the "biggest fucking idiot in existence" award
>>51565756
Making something closed source doesn't hurt anyone.
Even if you were to declare it a crime, it'd be a victimless crime
>>51565701
he's never been a lawyer
>>51565557
god that shirt... who on earth is autistic enough to wear something that fucking ugly and unstylish? i mean, it's bad even for a freetard
>>51565765
If everything was closed source nothing would be made
>>51565786
It's probably one of the few open source patterns he could find
>>51565777
It harms people every day
>>51565792
so its good not everything is closed source then
IDIOT
>>51565786
dude hates wearing name brand fashion
>>51565792
>what is competition
>what is industrial espionoge
bruh, just cause people don't want you mucking about with their work doesn't mean they are bad people
>>51565805
How? Did closed source kill your dog or something?
>>51565650
>stallman
>libertarian
He literally wants to ban guns. He literally wants to redistribute wealth.
>>51565557
If you pirated non free software you're worse than Richard Stallman. Let that sink in for a moment.
>>51565630
This. Open source doesn't mean unpaid
>>51565877
oh and the worst part of everything is he supports socialist Bernie Sanders
>>51565860
Not him, but you know this could actually happen very soon with the advent of smart homes
>>51565739
Okay, I know this seems like sound logic, but I want to slap you so very fucking hard right now.
NO IT ISN'T. Let me explain why this is false and an example of the poor habits we have developed from code monkey culture.
The first thing you should learn how to program in? It's not Python. It's not Java. Not Javascript. Not Bash. Not Batch. Not FORTRAN, not Lisp, not C, not C++, not Ruby, not HTML, not PASCAL.
It's assembly.
Now you are going to say in your head
>OMG Y WOULD U EVURR DO THAT ASSEMBLY IS, LIKE, AN ADVANCED THING!!!!
And I want to slap you even harder. Assembly is literally the easiest thing to learn, especially from scratch. You have 3 things to work with, opcodes, memory addresses and registers. That's it. Opcodes are all neumonic, most processors only have 6 regular registers and a few special ones, and memory addresses are just a hexadecimal number system.
All of this is covered in documentation, and the purpose of the opcodes is plain and simple. There are no libraries, no abstract concepts to learn. You don't even have to understand the intricate electrical engineering work going on inside of the computer. Writing in assembly is easy and you do NOT need to see any body else's code to do it. You just need to read the documentation. There are no special abstractions or phrases that you need to learn like what functions are, what are objects, what are structs, what the fuck is a "recursive tree", etc.
It just simply is. It's something that you can read the documentation of and just start making things.
You also put yourself ahead because you started out having to make everything from scratch. You couldn't rely on libraries or other people to hold your hand. You didn't have the luxury of objects, or functions, or if statements or for-loops or while-loops. You didn't even have arrays.
You had stacks. And you had JMP, JLE, JME and CMP. That was what you worked with.
1/2
>>51565934
why the fuck do people support socialists? Did they learn nothing from Hitler?
>>51565860
It's used to gain profit and power over people at their expense. The harm doesn't have to be immediate and apparent to be harmful, like killing my dog or exploding my computer. Gradual, concealed harm is often much more destructive, such as diseases or environmental degradation.
>>51565979
That's the fault of capitalism not closed source software
>>51565992
>>51565979
muh liberalism
>>51565795
topkek
>>51565739
>>51565945
2/2
So you move up to FORTRAN. And you find it so easy. You know most of these concepts, and hey look at this! You no longer have to have a flag that you jumped to whenever you wanted to have an "if-then-else" statement! And then you move up to C, and once again, things get easier. Everything is layed out even more. And then you move up to C++. And Python. And Java.
And you learn the abstract concepts like database management, objects, initialization, and the rest.
And you know what? You could do all of that without seeing a lick of code. By the time you moved out of Assembly you would have so much knowledge and experience you could just read the documentation of higher level languages. You wouldn't have to read the source of ANYTHING and you would be all the wiser than the code monkeys that learned how to program by copy-pasting shit from stack-overflow and open source software.
Don't try to sell me a shit sandwich, freetard. Do you think the programmers of the 50's and 60's had source code they could look at?
Do you think the programmers who wrote System V learned their skills from reading shitposts on /g/ and stack overflow, or do you think they knew to RTFM and practiced and got fucking gud?
Holy fuck C and BASIC were the worst things to happen to the computer science industry. Fuck you Ritchie Davis, you magnificent fuck.
>>51565979
What's wrong with gaining profit from people? You hate money and wanna be homeless or something?
>>51565557
>developers shouldn't get paid for their work
shitty strawman
no discussion to be had here/10
Why don't you go back to /pol/ and shitpost about racemixing and Rand Paul?
>>51565945
>>51566038
FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION KIDDIES ON SUICIDE WATCH
based low-level devs dealing out savage beatdowns
>>51566052
There's nothing wrong with gaining profit. There is something wrong with subjugating or abusing people, whatever the motive may be. The most common motive just happens to be profit.
>>51565949
Hitler wasn't a socialist.
>>51566085
Everything you do in life hurts someone else. Say, you get a job. That's a job that goes to you instead of someone else who may have needed it more.
It's dumb to think about that kinda shit
>>51565557
does stallman realize literally hundreds of douchebags dislike him for no other reason than being jews?
>>51566038
>RTFM
Man that's an acronym that is so fucking underused.
People are spoiled by google and stack overflow. Honestly it's getting more and more relevant these days with all of these braindead morons learning to program.
Just shut up and read the fucking manual you pussy ass faggots.
GPL is fucking stupid for video game engines. There's some stuff I wish I could use without having to include my source code. Might as well give people free wall hacks too
>>51566117
That's not actively causing harm, it's passive and unavoidable. Intentionally putting spyware or DRM into your software is actively mistreating your customers for your personal gain.
>>51566159
What about closed source that doesn't have DRM or spyware? It's dumb to lump that together with malicious shit
>>51566157
>not making it provably unhackable using Isabelle/HOL
>>51566159
You literally implied closed source was a "passive" harm.
Also closed source = botnet now?
Have linux babbies gone insane?
>>51565557
The expansion of 'free' software ideology allows Stallman to get those speaking engagements. It's a very profitable idea - it just doesn't make people other than Stallman money.
>>51566188
I said gradual, not passive. They're not synonyms.
>>51566171
I'm sure there is proprietary software which doesn't have malware, but I have absolutely no way of knowing, and it might be included in the future if it's not already.
>>51566277
>I have absolutely no way of knowing
Yes you do.
Reverse engineering isn't actually that hard. If you can write a compiler, you can reverse engineer without too much difficulty.
Imagine if Pythagoras never released his formulas, he just had people mail him numbers with some cash and he gave them the answers gathered from his formula. Mathematics would not be where it is today. Closed source software holds back the medium in a similar way.
also
>implying it's wrong for the end user to want to know exactly what software is doing on their machine
>>51566313
Someone else would figure it out. You don't need to look at other people's source code to solve a problem.
>>51566313
Mathematic formulae are a lot fucking harder to develop than a photoediting suite you fucking retard.
The "creative" side of mathematics is a lot fucking more complex than the "creative" side of programming.
I cannot believe you just made a comparison between math and programming not work.
>>51566313
>end user to want to know exactly what software is doing on their machine
End users can't read code. The typical /g/ user doesn't represent the average end user.
>>51566297
Then why don't they just release the source code if it can be reverse engineered so easily anyway?
>>51566333
You're right, but speed of advancement is important, why hold people back? The only real reason is 'so I can make a buck'
>>51566350
>durr the analogy is not exactly the same do it doesn't work
>>51566362
so?
>most people are retards so lets treat everyone that way
>>51566376
Even if you are smart, source code that is complete spaghetti and impossible to read isn't going to do you much good. People have hidden shit in plain sight before.
>>51566395
If it's impossible to read then why not release it?
>>51566333
So you're suggesting everyone that could possibly need any mathematical formula or software algorithm (or architectural design, or food recipe, or literally any other useful idea) figure it out themselves, even though there are so many that exist that it's impossible for one person to figure out in a lifetime?
>>51566415
Computer programs are much less complex than mathematics. It's just logic and telling a dumb computer to do simple thing.
I don't see why it's better for software to be "free", it makes no sense. Who cares? What difference does it make? Stallman lives in such a tiny world in his own head filled with stinky feet and dried cum on his fat stomach it disgusts me.
>>51566368
Why should they? What do they gain? The knowledge barrier that prevents code monkeys from understanding how to disassemble something and work with the result is enough for some people. Open source just contributes to the overabundance of talentless hacks in the compsci field that further dilute the value of the programmer.
Why hire somebody good who can write working code but demands a 6 figure salary when you can get a 22 year old kid who can copy paste shit from the internet and works for peanuts? Who cares if it breaks every week? Just fire the kid and hire a new one from the huge stack of applicants.
>>51566376
>durr the analogy is not exactly the same do it doesn't work
Yes that's how analogies work. Don't make bad ones next time, retard.
ALSO
>most people are retards so lets treat everyone that way
Non-retards know how to disassemble and even if they are too stupid to work with assembly in an efficient manner, it's easy as fucking cake to convert it into a higher level language.
>>51566430
Would you run a random .exe I sent you if I told you it didn't do anything bad?
You can't trust open source to not have malicious code. That's retarded. Shit happens all the time
https://twitter.com/droy_eclipse/status/542674652305584128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
>>51566426
It's not always simple though. If you're so certain that programming is so ez where's your programming masterpiece?
>>51566426
That doesn't refute anything I just said, and it's a broad stretch of a generalization.
>>51566313
Pythagoras probably didn't even discover most of the shit attributed to him you dingus.
>>51565557
0/10 shitposting
Free software means free as in freedom, as in it doesn't restrict, abuse, or otherwise harm the user.
It does not mean free as in a cost of $0.00
>>51565599
This isn't true either.
The FSF has no issue with the commercial sale of software.
>>51565649
The software has to be free, it does not have to be open source.
>>51566453
It's a lot more fucking simple than you think.
A 50 character formula can take literally 5 years to prove. A 50,000 line piece of software takes less than a year to write.
>where's your programming masterpiece?
Not in the hands of the general public.
>>51566469
>probably didn't even
well you convinced me
Maybe he benefited from other mathematicians that made their formulas available to the public.
>>51566441
>value of the programmer
What value? You realize programming will be easily done via machine, immediately putting you out of a job?
>>51566449
also
https://twitter.com/arstechnica/status/382511267606310913
>>51566441
Nobody is talking about what you just complained about. Sounds like you have some personal biases related to your career.
>>51565777
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Closed source software can be harmful, and moreso has bad effects on competitors and other developers. In the end it is overall harmful to the progress of that specific type of software as it prevents the development of others by discouraging sharing and making something better together as a community of developers; it focuses on milking cash out of people and getting as much attention as it can.
>look into "free as in freedom" smartphone
>only option is some Android ROM updated by a single autist
>only works on like 4 phones that are 5+ years old
>half of the shit doesn't work (camera, etc)
>but muh freedoms
>>51566522
You want bad effects on competitors. They're your competitors. You're not supposed to help them, unless you want to go out of business.
>>51566522
You act like software isn't a product like any other product. You make it, you sell it.
>>51566476
>The software has to be free, it does not have to be open source.
Not according to stallman's 4 freedoms.
>>51566492
>You realize programming will be easily done via machine, immediately putting you out of a job?
People still actually believe this?
Compilers that have been improved upon for over 4 decades, which are far less complex than an intelligently coding AI, still can't even match the efficiency of a moderatly experienced assembly dev, and assembly is a lot less abstract and complex than a higher level language.
>>51566506
Can you not even read?
>>51566488
Maybe you have no clue what you're talking about. This shit is common knowledge.
The Pythagorean Brotherhood had Pythagoras as its figurehead. They traditionally attributed all of their discoveries to him regardless of who actually found them. For this reason, it's nearly impossible to separate things out and give proper credit from the historian's point of view.
>>51566492
Who's going to program the programming computers?
checkm8 atheists
>>51566528
It sounds like you're on board with the idea, but wish it was more practical. Wouldn't it be nice if it *was* more practical? Why is your response a fatalistic "it's not already perfect so i give up" instead of "this is a noble and desirable goal, I would like to help work towards it"?
>>51566038
>>51565945
I would let you fuck me.
>>51566078
>Replying to your own posts
>>51566553
B-but lisp will eventually make fruitful AI!
J-just look at this hello-world program I wrote!!! It's basically half-sentient already!
>>51566557
Yes and when they achieve that, what use will we have for them?
checkm8godfag
>>51566555
Good thing this isn't a thread about Pythagoras then. Replace 'Pythagoras' in my post with 'The Pythagorean Brotherhood' if it makes you feel better.
>>51566542
It encourages competitors to make their software closed source and usually charged too.
Are you telling me you really care more about the company making money than having an actually good program? Skype is a great example of this. Piece of trash with no better alternatives due to being closed source that throws ads in your face and could be improved. They only think for themselves. Of course, as a business that's how the world goes around, but there IS open source software in existence which benefits the users; not the developers.
>>51566553
Having the source available is just the simplest way to comply with all of the user's essential freedoms.
If your program is readily decompiled without any sort of obfuscation then you do not need to directly provide source code. That allows people to study it, and modify it as they please.
RMS has spoken about this publicly.
>>51566528
you can buy an s3 international, put on replicant, and everything works fine
and most of the phones replicant supports are great phones that will stand the test of time
>>51566596
What if it's a video game with secrets and I don't want people to just decompile the game and find out the secrets? That violates the 4 freedoms, does it not?
But it also clashes with my vision for my game.
>>51566582
I care about both. I need to eat too, you know? If people want me to share they should join me, not be my competitors.
What's the easiest way to contribute?
Maybe it's time we hear from someone who actually gets paid to write software for a living and not freshman CS students who read cat-v and installed Arch, and think that makes them smarter than 99% of the "code monkeys" who actually work on real fucking systems for a living that are 100x larger than anything they've ever written and require high reliability.
I would wager that 90% of software that gets written is either internal to the company or is written for one client. The GPL and free software applies to distribution. If you are writing something that will never see distribution outside of your company or the one client it is written for, then the whole free software thing doesn't really come into play.
So no. Programmers won't starve under Stallman's model. But please, keep living under the naive perception that most software written shows up on app stores or comes in a nice shrink-wrapped box. Why leave the little bubble you've created for yourselves where C and Haskell are great and everyone else is just Sanjay Patel writing enterprise crapware? Keep living in your bubble. It will make it easier for me to have good job security if the only other people who apply are like /g/.
>>51566578
It was a shitty analogy and backpedaling doesn't make it less shitty. Fuck you Greek mathematics is more interesting than your bullshit software-related bloviating.
>>51566620
Microsoft eats, be very sure of this yo. Honestly if skype went open source, an alternative would be made that was better and skype would still have the major market share of everyone who doesnt trust a shitty fork. Mozilla eats. Not for long due to bad company decisions, but that's what open source gives you. Forks of the browser before it went trash.
>>51566641
My analogy is shitty why? Besides the historical inaccuracy that bothered you, of course.
>>51566619
>What if it's a video game with secrets and I don't want people to just decompile the game and find out the secrets?
Then it simply wouldn't be free software.
You have to understand while you may have honest intentions, other companies could and do employ the same thing but to hide DRM and adware in their programs. As a principle these practices shouldn't be used.
>>51566619
People find that shit no problem as it is. Usually on release day.
>>51566638
Most GPL software shows up on app stores or comes in a nice shrink-wrapped box and sold for actual money by someone who didn't even make it.
GPL is retarded. It's just giving away free code for other people to sell as shovelware. And no, nobody follows the fucking license or feels threatened by its stupid honor code bullshit
>>51566636
What a refreshing question :)
It depends on what skills you have.
Spreading the ideas of free software is important, more useful than you think, and anyone can do it.
If you're multilingual, you can offer translations for the FSF or other free software organizations.
If you know how to program, you can contribute code to free software projects.
You can also contribute to documentation or tutorials of free software projects, even if you're just a user of that software and don't know how to write code.
>>51566691
If you'e a girl or a sexual/ethnic minority you can contribute by adding diversity to the project
at least according to GitHub
>>51566691
Thanks for the suggestions!
I have limited coding experience. I have some experience with Python and Ruby, maybe this will give me the drive to continue learning.
So I thought I had an interesting perspective on this. In case you guys don't know, I'm the creator of Space Station 13, a game built on the Byond engine.
Now if you know SS13, you might think I'm here to argue for open-source, as pretty much almost every modern codebase is open source! But this wasn't always the case.
Back in the early years when it was me, Hobnob and a few minor contributers, there was one "codebase". Mine. And it was NOT open source.
This was in part because I was somewhat proud of the algorithms I created for FEA, my 2D, real-time dynamic airflow and gas simulation I had running on the CPU. But also one of the more complex mechanics were bombs. Bombs in SS13 are different from other games, it utilized a fictional material called "plasma" that was superheated and oxygen. When tanks filled with these respective gases were hooked up to a valve that transferred gas between them, it caused an explosion based on a number of factors.
Now I was extremely strict about information about game mechanics. The people I distributed the code to were under my scrutiny to ban anybody who shared information about mechanics in OOC. This is in part because the entire game is simulated, and if you know all of the formulas it was very easy to use you knowledge of the meta to grief extremely hard.
Like >>51566619 touched on, I had my game closed source because I didn't want people to come across these secrets. Otherwise you'd have people detonating huge 100,100,100 bombs and just griefing entire servers, making the game unplayable. I wanted these powerful weapons to be something as a reward for smart players who experimented. The whole "station" was justified in the lore for these experiments!
In fact, it wasn't until someone who read the leaked source code shared the formulas and algorithms with one "cuban pete" that admins on Goon decided to change the formula, due to lots of abuse and grief from this one player.
That's just my input, though.
>>51565624
>>51566776
where's your proof? I could say I'm Notch and you wouldn't believe me now would you?
>>51566638
>I would wager that 90% of software that gets written is either internal to the company or is written for one client. The GPL and free software applies to distribution. If you are writing something that will never see distribution outside of your company or the one client it is written for, then the whole free software thing doesn't really come into play.
You're right that most software is written as such, but you're wrong that free software doesn't matter in that case. If it's not free software, the organization that paid for the software development is now completely dependent on those developers. Those developers could abuse this advantage over the company and require exorbitant rates for bug fixes or improvements and/or do shoddy work because they know they're the only option. Even if those developers do have the best intentions, they may not even be able to work on that software anymore for various reasons. The software could be used in-house for years and the developer(s) might not even be alive anymore. If a business is paying for a software solution to be developed for in-house use, it's imperative that it be free software, so that they can hire anyone they'd like in the future to modify it.
>>51566757
Contributing to existing free software projects is one of the best ways to learn, and it looks great on your resume because it shows you're capable and passionate.
This shitpost thread derailed in a positive way.
To contribute an example, thanks to open source we got projects like OpenRA too.
You can get the c&c franchise in origin but i doubt the money reaches the actual dev, plus they might not run in current OS
>>51566776
I should clarify some stuff here:
"Goon" is shorthand for "Goonstation" a server run by Something Awful, one of the first branches to exist off of my leaked source code. It's the branch that all other branches (Except for a very, very old and unused version of the Bay 12 Games branch) are derived from.
That formula change affected all modern codebases.
>>51566804
Hold on, I have something that you might find satisfactory. I need to find one of my backup drives, first, though.
>>51566804
Here's the earliest code that I still have lying around, the 2.3 host files.
After I lost all of the previous versions when I formatted a drive about 8 years ago, I thought that was the end of it, until one of the host files got leaked.
This got me thinking, I could probably still download some of the host files that I distributed to the server hosts. Lo and behold, I found an email with the 2.3 host files as an attachment and redownloaded it.
Tools exist that you can use to decompile this and peek at the environment file inside.
https://mega.nz/#!qAUXQQZb!9fVmSDuk0nqKqxfSmuN8-fW76r252wgeYWyPdKraoPo
>>51565557
they get paid
people just don't pay what the developer thinks their product is worth, they pay what the user thinks its worth
So what are the main pros and cons of free software?
>>51568100
pros
>improves the speed at which programming can advance and develop
>software can be altered to your specific needs or improved outright
>you know exactly what the software is doing on your machine
cons
>if your software has a vulnerability everyone can see it
>HOW AM I GOING TO MAKE MONEY GOYIM?
>>51568231
>you know exactly what the software is doing on your machine
No you don't
>software can be altered to your specific needs or improved outright
Why not just remake the software from scratch?
>>51568248
>No you don't
You can only hide so much in plain sight, if your code is available, people can figure it out given enough time.
>Why not just remake the software from scratch?
Because you wouldn't have to in a free software society.
>>51568267
>Because you wouldn't have to in a free software society.
So nothing new ever gets programmed? We just add onto what our ancestors made?
That's a slippery fucking slope, I have to say.
>>51568419
Nothing is preventing anyone from writing new software if there's a need for it...
>>51568419
>So nothing new ever gets programmed?
No, people wouldn't just stop programming because everything is open source. They wouldn't even necessarily be building on to older code, just seeing how other successful programmers solved various problems and made certain things would advance the field by years.
Stallman and other freetards believe that all "good" programmers have side projects that they do for free and that they should spend their free time working on free (as in freedom) software.
You often see freetards claiming that any programmer who doesn't do this is a bad programmer/asshole. I guess that most of them have difficulty understanding the fact that many people have actual lives and enjoy doing things other than work.
>>51565586
I get the distinction in theory but aren't they effectively the same thing?
>you can only monetize data by destroying basic property rights, telling people who own it that they don't, and making it "licensed, not sold"
In stallman's world, consumer tech works like this: hardware-centric computing giants shell out for freelance programming as a service. The software is not their product, it just comes with it so it can be nicer.
If you're good at something never do it for free
And never, ever do it and then ask money for it LATER instead of BEFORE THE FUCKING FACT
>>51568483
what are you talking about?
>>51565599
>models of modern capitolism
is that what they're calling american IP laws these days?
>>51568470
i believe that a good programmer wouldn't write a line of code until you gave him a check and a design document
whether or not the code is GPL or not is a concern for your business model, not his
>>51568432
But there isn't, we can just take other people's code and add onto it!
What if the software's creator doesn't want people adding onto his program?
I like to think of programs as something similar to a book. They are a composure of words and "grammar", arranged in a specific, logical order, that has a meaning. Now this analogy isn't airtight, so forgive me, but...
Most authors wouldn't care if their publishing company wanted to outsource a sequel to a different author. Or if another author made an abridging of their book. They are in it for the paycheck.
But some authors wouldn't let that happen, not for 1 billion dollars. Do you really think that James Joyce would have loved for someone to waltz up to him, tell him "I IMPROVED ULYSSES FOR YA XD" and hand him a bunch of pages of shitty fanfiction that would belong on deviantart in 100 years?
>>51568509
There are a lot of people calling for CPUs to be "open sourced" like their GNU XNOR Linux.
>>51568549
>What if the software's creator doesn't want people adding onto his program?
Then he's a fucking whiny child. It's not "his" program, it's their data. What if a carpenter doesn't want you to paint his chair? Fuck him. He shouldn't have given it to you. He can go be a starving artist.
>There are a lot of people calling for CPUs to be "open sourced" like their GNU XNOR Linux.
And how do you intend to manufacture the CPU? What about the rest of the system?
>>51568549
>What if the software's creator doesn't want people adding onto his program?
Then he won't accept the proposed changes that he doesn't like into his project. If someone else wants to modify thei own copy of the software, that's their choice.
>>51566014
>what is anarcho capitalism.
>>51568549
do you think what james joyce thinks of freedom of expression means it should be restricted
do you think proprietary software is any different? you can modify binaries. it's not convenient, but it's commonplace.
>>51568549
>what if mcdonald's doesn't want you to add your own sauce to their burger?
>>51568626
muh moral rights of le artist oui oui i am le francois woman man i must protect le feelings as le original SJW
>>51568585
>And how do you intend to manufacture the CPU? What about the rest of the system?
I wasn't saying that as a good thing.
As a hardware engineer who works like an autist with a team of around a dozen or so other people, all operating under intense scrutiny, I can safely laugh my ass off and tell you this will NEVER happen.
Not only would your average user have no idea what half the shit in the documentation even means, they would have zero fucking chance to even peice together the intricate way it all meshes together. And I don't even work at a top development house like Intel or AMD. They have teams of hundreds of people that they pay $300k+ who are at the top of their fucking field. No matter how many /g/entooman you get to huddle around in an IRC there is zilch fucking chance you are going to understand how a modern CPU functions without spending decades playing catchup with advancements to design and architecture that we don't tell you about.
I bet you didn't even know that there are zero x86 processors being manufactured by Intel. They are all specially designed RISC chips that emulate a x86 IS.
>>51568602
>>51568622
I see your point.
But what if said software was created as an art piece, and instead of being sold in copies, it was stored in a cloud system among other, similar software and you payed an "entrance" fee to see and interact with the software?
>>51568687
Stallman does draw a line between creative works and practical works. If you write code for an obfuscated code contest, you could consider that art, and Stallman wouldn't say it must be freely licensed (he believes it should allow redistribution of exact copies, but not necessarily allow modifications). But that's not the case for the vast majority of code.
About your cloud thing, you're describing Software as a Service, which is only acceptable when it's used for an activity that could not be done locally on your own computer.
>>51568687
>But what if said software was created as an art piece, and instead of being sold in copies, it was stored in a cloud system among other, similar software and you payed an "entrance" fee to see and interact with the software?
fair but a dick move
the biggest dick move is all software being like that, which is the primary goal of the "modern web" push
I've got a better question. Why does Stallman choose the word FREE for FREE software when its a term ripe for confusion. Why doesn't he just call it FREEDOM software. Then it's a distinct term and normies refering to proprietary freeware won't cause any confusion.
>>51568769
I was thinking similar to an art gallery.
You can't exactly ask for a copy of the Mona Lisa, now can you?
>>51568736
Stallman believes that not all property is equal? Something declared "art" gets exceptions that code does not?
What a philosophically confused man
Intent does not make a creation different. A drawing meant to scare away crows is no different from the same painting hung non-functionally on a wall, but one is GPL and the other is a special license that disallows modification in stallmanland.
>>51568785
there is literally an industry built around people wanting copies of famous paintings
imagine if those paintings were made under israelimerican IP laws and copyrighted for life+7000 years, transferable to any corporation with an infinite lifespan
imagine if you couldn't copy a painting for a different frame size without special "source paint"
that industry wouldn't exist. those jobs wouldn't exist. but a select few artists would be far richer than people trying to cure cancer.
>>51568774
freedom software sounds retarded.
>>51568774
I think people have realised that which is why we're seeing 'Libre' used a lot more
>>51565915
my question is how can you combat piracy(unauthorized copying) if software is opensource?
>>51565624
Fucking americans thinking free only means free as in beer.
fuck you
every other language has two meanings, but you guys decide that free only means free
>>51568845
copying is authorized...
>>51568833
"Communal" software is more accurate
A software without a license, or a license that merely excludes it from restrictions, is free in a libertarian sense. But stallman demands that the means of production be shared counter to libertarian principles in order to foster self sufficiency.
>>51565945
>>51566038
you're absolutely fucking based
>>51567036
Never expected to find you posting on /g/.
What's your opinion on "TG"station? (Nowadays, not back ago)
>>51568845
You don't need authorization you jewish piece of shit
>>51568846
They're ameriburgers mate what do you expect?
They're like Tasmanians except fatter.
>>51566038
>Do you think the programmers of the 50's and 60's had source code they could look at?
yes that is quite literally where stallman got the idea. academia shared code with everyone, and companies shared code with employees.
The programmers who wrote system V, which is an unholy nightmare and brutal affront to everything UNIX stands for, looked at earlier code.
Ritchie and kernighan had prior works to examine when they wrote actual UNIX
And they knew assembly because they had to, not because a shitpost told them it was hardcore
Real programmers are too smart to waste time on being "real programmers".
>>51568845
How well is copy protection working in closed-source world?
>>51568951
Terribly, but you can throw otherwise innocent people into a toilet and take all their money if they don't think you deserve life+70 years of exclusive rights to ones and zeroes on your hard disk.
>>51568838
>I think people have realised that which is why we're seeing 'Libre' used a lot more
Since when? I've only been gone two days, I've literally not seen anyone using that word until today. Did I just miss a huge trend in two fucking days?
>>51568948
I was waiting for this reply.
Code was freely shared.
Top job anon.
>>51566038
As much as I agree with people needing to learn the basics, you would be a fool to say that everyone should start with assembly. Humanity as we know it is built on the shoulders of giants, and if every. single. programmer. had to start from scratch, we would all just be repeating work needlessly.
>>51568845
>Write software, demonstrate product
>Start kickstarter for software
>Release source code and product to everyone once you get fully paid
>>51568965
Nah you didnt.
Hes just full of shit.
>>51568846
we have two meaning but we tend to use the freedom meaning when something is capable of acting on its own. products cant really have freedom
when we use the phrase land of the free, free is referring the freedom we have not that if you want to own us there is no cost
tldr in english saying a product is free implies price meaning, free referring to beings is freedom
>>51566776
Security through obscurity isn't a good practice, period.
Just because it's 'not allowed' doesn't mean someone can't and won't decompile your software and find those things anyway.
If free software was implemented world wide we would have much better software than what we already have. For anything.
Aliens would then actually consider befriending us humans.
>>51568948
>brutal affront to everything UNIX stands for
Unix was once an operating system. Today it's but a shell of it's former glory. It's touted by pretentious fucks in the form of Linux and BSD, but chucklefucks like you just don't understand.
Unix has always been about proprietary software. Bell Labs (you know, the RnD team that fucking made Unix?) made System V. It was the culmination of all of their work on "research Unix". They didn't make Unix with the intention to forever keep it free. They wanted to revolutionize computing.
>They knew assembly because they had to
Okay, I actually did a lot of fucking research into pre-80's computing and I want to hurt you so much right now with how retarded this is.
To understand the landscape of the 70's and compters, here's a really shitty pleb analogy for you:
IBM is The Institute.
Bell Labs is Big MT.
IBM touted themselves as being the frontrunner of advanced computing, and on the hardware front, they were generally right. Their mainframes were fucking kickass and there is a reason why their name is recognizable outside of the industrial market 4 decades later.
But Bell Labs had every toy they could ever want. This was back when compilers were something for huge companies and universities, which is why ASM was so popular pre-80's (this changes very early in the 80's, for clarification, with the advent of the microcomputer)
Bell Labs wrote Unix in Assembly because it was (and still is) the lingua franca. It was then rewritten in B. And then Ritchie made C and it was rewritten in C. And that's when there was a change in Unix. It started moving towards feature complete status.
The result of 5 years of hard fucking labor was System V. A monstrosity half coded in ASM half coded in the new C language, and it was so robust it managed to convince people 4 fucking decades later that running their home desktop like a 1970's mainframe is not only a sign of being technically adept, but also fun!
>>51569048
If Hobnob never gave that faggot the host files, my game would have never gotten decompiled.
>>51569079
you with wanting to hurt people again
>>51569109
I'm a very passionate person.
>>51569079
can you post a pic of yourself?
i just wanna see the person that wants to hurt
>>51568948
>>51568872
>>51568893
>>51568958
You guys are full of shit, I hope for you that you'll get out of your basement some day and face the real world.
>>51566235
I'm sure redhat and others are really poor
btw, did you know that even some hard drive disks (to show an interesting example) use linux?
yeah, practically everything uses linux now. and linux is FREE and open source
>>51569156
I'm a twink, I'm just being a tough guy on the internet to be honest.
>>51569173
I cant believe i just clapped from reading a 4chan post
>>51565945
>>51566038
How do I learn Assembly?
>>51569165
There are hundreds of thousands of developers who get paid to do open source work.
You're looking at this from the wrong angle, FOSS/Libre can be a pain for companies who specifically and only deal with selling the software they develop, sure.
But for every Microsoft, there are a 1000 Facebook/google/twitter/DOD/apache's - The don't make their money selling software, but they do develop software as part of their operations.
Giving that software away for free is a great idea - as it means other people will use it.
>but why would I want other people to use it for free
Because they can and will contribute back, consider a bug that you and your development team have been having nightmares with - a fresh pair of eyes from outside - that you didn't have to pay for either - could fix that in an instant.
So essentially, other people, companies even will be helping to improve the software that makes your business tick - and unlike proprietary software, there is no expectation of warranty, so they're just contributing new code for you, but you don't have to suppor them/their users at all.
>>51569165
This is the real world. This is daily life, motherfucker. IP laws don't work on a civillian level unless you go full nazi police state. They were designed to stop businesses from monetizing each others products and encourage competition, not to stop people from putting sauce on their own burgers or tracing over their own paintings.
But I'm sure hollywoodcorp needs the extra millions from DVD sales on top of their billions from controlled theatre exhibitions or whatever
Celebrity goldberg wants to get divorced for the price of a small island next year
>>51569267
hollywoodcorp would get them even if it were legal to copy because people are dumbfucks that go gaga over owning collectors editions with shiny boxes
>>51569165
How am I full of shit? You are, by definition, authorized to copy free software. The license grants you permission to redistribute.
>>51569247
Well i only know bash (Im a slaughterman, not in the it industry), but if i wanted to seriously learn a language i would take a class and not just rely on the net. That way i could talk with the teacher if problems arise instead of just dealing with my interpretation of the online instruction. Plus you are pushed to do things which is good in my case because when i have a day off work i dont want to do fuck all.
>>51569389
you do realize he is a child right?
>>51569418
Well, he is on 4chan. So I'd assume as much.
>>51568483
No. If I go down to the free market, am I entitled to pick one of everything without any kind of payment? It's a free market which means I don't pay anything, amirite!
>>51569462
Nailed it
>>51565557
w2c shirt?
>>51568803
Art is anything that has no practical use.
Eg a wall in a house may have a function such as holding the roof but a picture on the wall provides nothing to the stability if the house. It just looks nice.
So a program is usually written to execute some task. Adding functionality or optimizing the way it does that is to improve its function in relation to the task at hand.
So I wouldn't consider programs art.
The only way art can have any value is by scarcity. If you make something that has a practical use and other people could benefit from it, why would you give that away with some weird rules you impose upon people like "never question how this works" or "don't you dare try to improve this".
>>51568803
Stallman believes that there should be a distinction between works of artistic expression and works of practical function. Works of practical function must be free as in freedom.
>>51569298
Yes. This is the best argument - sell a fucking PHYSICAL PRODUCT, not ones and zeros. Develop the ones and zeros only if A. they will help you move hardware B. someone paid for it ahead of time or C. ongoing support contract (subset of B).
>>51566619
Data for the game is ancillary to the workings of the program. You could throw all the data in a blackbox and trademark that seven ways from sunday, and as long as the underlying engine was FLOSS, you'd be fine. See quake for an example of this.
