I understand the draw of open source and free as in freedom software. But why is he so hostile to the idea of programmers making money off of programming? I've never had an issue with paying developers for software that I enjoy and use frequently.
>>51649917
Who the fuck is hostile?
For example I'm paying part of the salary for the Tarruda guy that works on neovim with my contributions.
It's a good thing if you can make money of off contributing to an open project.
>>51649987
RMS openly hates people who make money off of developing software.
>>51650004
Okay, that's one guy, who else?
>>51650004
[citation needed]
>>51650018
I'm just talking about RMS though? Hence the use of a singular "he" in the OP, and the image of RMS.
>>51649917
>bait
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
>>51650033
Probably because he's a socialist.
That's his thing.
>>51649987
but if all software worked on this model, contributions to an individual project or one that doesnt have a large possible userbase would not be enough to live on, reducing motivation to drive technology forward. Nothing innovates like greed is why tech advancement speeds up with capitalist pig tactics.
Prove it
RMS looks so cool
>>51649917
>>51650004
>implying implications
stop being retarded on purpouse, it's embarrassing.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
>>51650794
>Make a free software.
>Sell it.
>Someone buys it.
>Uses the code to make a fork and distribute it for free.
>Nobody buys the software because there is a free version who does the same for free.
>>51651022
who the fuck puts dots in greentext
>>51649917
> But why is he so hostile to the idea of programmers making money off of programming?
He isn't.
He is hostile to the idea of restricting users' freedoms, including the freedom to be able to modify and share the code.
The fact that it's much harder to for a programmer to make money off code which can be freely shared is just collateral damage, not an explicit goal.
It's literally in the definition of free software that you must be allowed to use it for commercial purposes.
>>51651022
>Red Hat
>>51652655
Centos says hi.
Also, Red Hat sells technical support, not software. You can't apply the same model to sell an open source game, an open source music player, for example. Red Hat's business model is only applicable to a very small sector of he spectrum, and technically, if the system was easier and more efficient, there would be not need for buying their services.
>>51652655
CentOs is literally a fork of red hat that's free you autist
>>51652702
>an open source game
free engine, licensed artwork
it's the artwork that makes the game special
>an open source music player
most music players are free (as in free beer) already
if you want to make music now you either sell the music or let people stream the music
you probably picked the worst examples f a m
>>51652832
>free engine, licensed artwork
Tell me how any decent development team can see that as an advantage to create a successful project.
Does anyone know what rms responds to the argument of "if the user chooses to install non free software its the user's choice, therefore he is responsible for the shackles and not the maker of said software"?
He is not hostile to the idea of selling free software. See for example: Red Hat, Canonical, etc.
>>51653059
The reason to use free software isn't for some gain, Stallman is making an ethical argument.
>>51652712
Yes, amazingly, Red Hat is still in business.
Now wonder why
>>51653853
>Is not hostile, but the market is very small and the business models are very limited too that is -almost- impossible.
>>51654126
>The reason to use free software isn't for some gain
I agree. There is a reason why we need closed source software too.
>>51653059
Not him and I'm personally not opposed to closed source games but I could see a benefit in that model. It would require less work from each game company, they could just improve the engine a little bit instead of re-writing everything from scratch. Every company would do a little less work but the quality would probably only go up.
I'm not sure about this though, it could backfire.
>>51654903
What is Unity vs Unreal. This is playing out literally right now.
