How do you make money writing GPL software? Wouldn't any sane business Jew avoid GPL altogether for permissive or proprietary because they don't want liability for a Cease and Desist from the Software Freedom Conservancy?
When will Copyleftists admit their utopian vision for the tech economy won't work? That most people want something that just werks and couldn't care less about developer and user freedums? That proprietary/permissive will always win out over copyleft because they're allowed to make more money?
Don't tell me you'll become the next Red Hat, because you won't. There has never been another Red Hat.
>>53204239
>How do you make money writing GPL software?
The only thing the GPL mandates is that the source code travels with the binaries. You can still write code for money. It's just that if your customers want the source code you must give it to them. This is to prevent businesses from having a monopoly rooting from dependencies.
>>53204272
I'd also like to add, this is also to prevent businesses from having a monopoly over the users. Users, when they buy software, have a right to know -exactly- what the program they purchased is doing.
Selling a program and now giving this freedom to them is like buying a car but not being able to pop the hood.
>>53204272
It also allows others to freely redistribute your unmodified code under the GPL, either making money off of your work or just giving it away for free
it is literally impossible to write software for a living if you use the GPL
>>53204546
>>53204239
>it is literally impossible to write software for a living if you use the GPL
this is the truth
>>53204239
If you'd spent eight seconds in tech you'd know that SaaS/PaaS is the standard business model. Licensing has fuck all to do with it.
Admit it, you're a sophmore at a state U who thought he found a gotcha.
>>53204546
Except you've literally named a counter example, and plenty of places make money off gpl software, not just red hat.
They don't have to be a billion dollar company, or only make money off gpl software to count.
Permissive software continously winds up getting abused by companies to fuck users.
When will permissive autisits realize that their tech utopia of companies respecting users, and giving back just isn't going to happen, and that if you want control, and to mantain control over software, copyleft is needed.
>>53204239
No one actually sells software anymore. The current market is all SaaS and cloud. GPL does fuck all in stopping that.
huge businesses run apache
they must not have an IT department
> op logic
>>53204583
Holy fuck, say that to google. The whole linux kernel is copy left and they get along just fine.
>>53204546
Well, unless of course your profit model doesn't revolve around selling copies of software. One easy model is SaaS, and if you don't want to use that, sell by commission and use crowd funding.
>>53204239
Open Source is a self-inflicted scam. Businesses get to harvest the fruits of your labor and in exchange you get to work on an hourly basis to customize the free software for them.
Open Source software is quite literally dumb, self-defeating programmers shoveling money up the employment chain, all for dumb Internet karma.
>>53204239
The software you *sell*, yes, it would be dumb to GPL.
However releasing GPL software that you simply planned to open source it's a great strategy, because it opens you up for selling it in the future. See: PyQt.
And LGPL is great too if you do want business adoption but also have changes on your library to be contributed back. See: Qt.
Friendly reminder to avoid the fascist GPL and LGPL when considering software licenses. These licenses promise core Freedoms in exchange for complying with various conditions. The GPL and LGPL are a plague that infects any project's source (the LGPL, less so) and is incompatible with the ideals of True Freedom.
Consider, instead, the MIT, BSD, and MPL licenses which are the licenses for the People. These embrace the idea of Free and Open source for all to benefit from. The MPL, in particular, gives assurances that the code licensed under it remains open while respecting the decisions of future users in licensing their own code; the MPL does not insist that any code a programmer writes also be MPL'd, only that the code said programmer is using, already licensed under MPL, remain as such and respects the terms of that license.
>>53205038
First of all, I'm firmly aware you're trolling, but this is for the newfags.
Saying "avoid GPL" ignores the fact that many people want their projects not to be used by propietary software. If I'm making an open source end-user application, I'm most likely making it GPL since I don't want anyone else to use dirty business tactics like EEE or bundling malware and shipping it (just see what's happening to Chromium).
If I'm making a library I want all developers to use however, I'm most likely making it MIT licensed, or LGPL licensed if I really think users should contribute back without having to publish the rest of their application.
The are valid, moral usecases for all these licenses.
>>53205095
agreed.
>>53205095
If I'm making an open source program, I would, by default, publish it under the MPL which states that any changes made to the code I wrote must also be made publicly available under the MPL. However, any additional code which is not a modification of my own may be licensed under whatever terms they decide as the author of said code. That is, using my code does not force its own ideals onto the author's code.
The LGPL is still incredibly limited and requires your code to be linked to as a non-static library (it can not be compiled and used as a static library as it then qualifies the rest of the code base as being one and the same or a combined work)
GPL and LGPL are Harmful and to consider otherwise is to be misinformed and/or misguided.
>>53205239
>I'm a cuck who wants companies to profit off my work while getting nothing in return
:^)
>>53205250
Don't publish your code if you want to keep it to yourself and prevent others from profiting (if they even would)
The GPL and LGPL do not prevent companies from profiting off of your work either - any entity may freely modify and use GPL'd/LGPL'd code in any manner they choose and not have to show anybody the new source as long as they aren't actually distributing their changes (they keep usage of the new program in house)
>>53204649
>citing the second most popular permissive license as an argument for commercial GPL viability
What about all those who have become millionaires from their GPL licenced software like WordPress? If it was bad for business then who do they earn so much money?
>>53205239
I'd choose the LGPL with static compiling clause before the MPL. The MPL opens up a few holes that allow abstractions to be introduced to prevent releasing new code publicly. I'm not comfortable with it.
>>53204349
Great analogy dear cum muncher
>>53204583
Many people write free software for a living. Some even earn millions of dollars every year like those WordPress guys. Completely GPL certified with huge wages maintaining it.
>>53204546
>>53204583
>>53204546
>>53204583
That's wrong. I earned my fortune by selling the GPL software that I wrote. Did you know how I did it? I got customers to commit to my project before I started writing the project.
>>53205439
There are only a few privileged GPL applications whose authors can profit off consulting and support desu.
>>53204239
Most free software developers actually have jobs for major firms and get paid good salaries.
It's often said that the only way you'd be unemployed in free software is if you want to be unemployed. Many big firms scout out free software and will higher you if you write good code. It's almost better than a college degree.
>>53205487
All GPL applications can profit off selling it.
>>53205510
And most users are smart enough not to buy them and get their binaries from somewhere else.
Sorry Stallman, that doesn't work in the real world, it's the same as putting a donation box and giving away free downloads.
>>53205533
How do you get the GPL program from somewhere else if it doesn't exist?
>>53204239
>Don't tell me you'll become the next Red Hat, because you won't. There has never been another Red Hat.
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read
>>53205548
From the first guy that compiled and distributed the binary from the first person who bought it and redistributed the source. It could just be the same guy as well.
>>53205548
It's open source dipshit
>someone buys program
>source code is distributed with it
>redistributesst source code and precompiled binaries
>>53205579
>>53205593
If I sold my GPL program, I've made my profit already. I'm not going to care if my customer redistributes my program, he paid for the right to do that.
>>53205598
You know exactly what I mean. You could potentially sell exactly one copy and never make a profit ever again off it.
Please stop trolling, we're trying to make a serious thread for developers who aren't aware how free software licenses work.
>>53205598
You can't be this retarded
>take gpl
>modify
>run through obfuscator
>distribute
problem, stallman?
>>53205623
What I mean is that I can make a profit selling GPL software. Why is it important if I can only make one potential sale for that software?
>>53205635
You can't be this genious :^)
>>53205681
Congratulations for purposely making /g/ worse than it is. I hope you're proud of what you achieved.
>>53205695
No worries mate. Here have an anime and be happy
