>"Software SHOULD be Free"
Why?
>>54189995
The same reason slavery should be abolished.
>>54190013
so... no reason at all ?
>>54189995
Because you're already paying for the hardware
English has no distinction between "free as in free beer" and "free as in freedom of speech".
Free Software refers to the latter.
You should have the 4 essential freedoms:
0. the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose
1. the freedom to look at the source code, and change it to suit your needs
2. the freedom to redistribute the source code to benefit everyone
3. the freedom to redistribute your modifications to the source code so others can benefit from your changes
>>54190027
Human decency.
It is ethical
just watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM
>>54190087
That doesn't answer his question tough
>>54190013
reason for slavery abolishment is that no one wants to be a slave, or at least no one sane.
But we can have healthy relationship between people wanting to make software and people willing to pay for it.
>>54190087
matters not
>>54190155
so is buying software from a guy who is willing to sell it to me
>>54190185
>just watch this
fuck off
either you have arguments or not
>>54190027
pretty edgy
>>54190228
>But we can have healthy relationship between people wanting to make software and people willing to pay for it.
"Free" means "free as in freedom of speech", not "free of charge"
>>54189995
>coding strait into the garbage
How fitting.
>>54189995
At the very least, customers should be allowed to modify the software they bought.
For example game mods should be allowed, and anyone against it is worse than Hitler.
>>54190228
>so is buying software from a guy who is willing to sell it to me
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
Selling your software doesnt make it non-free, just as freeware isnt necessarily free software
>>54189995
Because i am a poor lazy commie
>>54190290
FREE does not mean FREE as in FREE BEER. It means FREE as in FREEDOM.
>>54190280
>>54190257
I am not seeing any argument why software should be free
keep your lingo arguments in your linux threads
>>54190087
So 1 person can purchase the software, make changes, redistribute this software free of charge to 1000 people without the original creator getting any compensation?
>>54190319
>keep your lingo arguments in your linux threads
THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU START THIS THREAD YOU AUTISTIC FUCK?
>>54190346
Yes
>inb4 but that's not fair
It's not fair that the user isn't allowed to do modifications to the software and give these modifications to his friends either.
It's literally the lesser of two evils. Consumer rights are valued more than the rights of the producer. It's as simple as that.
>>54190319
It should be free so you are in charge of your own computing and not some other corporation.
And now don't give me that "intel is backdoored anyways" crap. Just because parts of a system are non-free, does not mean striving for freedom is not desirable.
>>54189995
it is immoral to charge for something you can make infinite copies of.
>>54189995
Communists should be put on their knees and shot in the back of their stupid heads. Fucking subhumans.
>>54190372
But that's wrong
The software creator created the software. The consumer didn't do shit - he doesn't deserve any rights, save the right to use what he bought. What you're suggesting is okay is theft. Companies > individuals
>>54190354
I did start the thread aspie
stop sperging
and also realize that its absolutely irrelevant which meaning of free is the case ITT
one or the other, it changes very little
so choose whichever meaning you want and make argument why software should be free instead of repeating same shit bickering about free/free
but hey, that would require you actually thinking
>>54190087
Is this copypasta
>>54190391
So if I spend years creating a story and write it into a book, it should be free to copy and resell?
>>54190401
Except free software works in a capitalis society just fine. This is not about some economic system, it's just about personal liberty in computing, something most conservative americans (who are vocal proponents of capitalism) should deeply care about.
>>54190372
It's not that it isn't fair, its that the original creator has no motivation what so ever to make the software as it will not be profitable, unless they do some kind of crowd source funding which requires selling the software one time for a large figure of money
As long as the consumer knows exactly what they are paying for then I don't see how consumer rights are affected? They are purchasing a thing, as long as that thing works as described then that should be that.
>>54190424
Yes of course, why shouldn't it?
>>54190410
>consumer rights are immoral
Then I guess you should take that up with the law then.
>>54190413
>hurr durr i'm too stupid to educate myself about the issue
Read this and fuck off:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
>>54190449
>the law
You can use free software if you want. OP is suggesting software SHOULD be free. That, I imagine, includes proprietary software
Thank God it isn't free
>>54190410
If I can't see your source code, I don't want your shitware running on my computer.
>>54190449
cant you tell us why YOU think software should be free?
>>54190426
Then why do free software commies want to abolish proprietary software? There is literally nothing wrong with proprietary software, the choice of license is ultimately up to the developer.
Communists hate freedom, plain and simple.
>>54190479
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery that all started with the big bang.
>>54190379
So all software should be free because you feel entitled to be in control of your computing?
Dont put non free software on your PC, how about that?
Or dont use technology that makes you uncomfortable because of its non free aspects?
>>54190087
>0
>>54190435
>its that the original creator has no motivation what so ever to make the software as it will not be profitable
Implying implications
By your logic, open source and free software projects wouldn't exist. But they obviously do. People are even paid salaries by companies for contributing to open source projects.
>unless they do some kind of crowd source funding which requires selling the software one time for a large figure of money
Selling software is not the only way to make money from software, especially in this day and age where everyone uses cloud services instead of buying and installing software locally.
I mean, you have MLAs, SLAs, SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, hosting, and a bunch of other stuff that you make most of the money from anyway.
>As long as the consumer knows exactly what they are paying for
How could he, without having access to the source code?
>I don't see how consumer rights are affected?
They are, see below.
Free software is about having the right to private ownership. If you pay for a thing, it should actually become yours.
>They are purchasing a thing, as long as that thing works as described then that should be that.
But what if it doesn't work? You're allowed to modify furniture that doesn't fit in your house. You're allowed to fix your radio if it breaks down. You're allowed to tell your neighbour how you fixed your radio.
Why should software be treated differently from this?
>>54190479
Don't use proprietary software then. I'll be over here listening to music on Spotify for Ubuntu
>>54190487
Do you faggots realize that the work of the FSF and RMS is based around change from an individual perspective, not through legislation? It's not about forcing anyone (by law) to code for free. It's about making people realize that, for a society as a whole, profit from proprietary software is less valuable than liberty in computing. No one is forcing anyone to stop taking money for software. In fact, making custom business solutions does not mean the software can't be free as in freedom. You can still charge money for coding. You'll just have to live with the fact that anyone is free to modify it or take what you published for free. Value money more than freedom? Well then don't make it free, no one is forcing you to do anything. Free software is neither communism, nor facism.
>>54190435
>the original creator has no motivation [...] unless
Contradicting yourself.
>As long as the consumer knows exactly what they are paying for then I don't see how consumer rights are affected? They are purchasing a thing, as long as that thing works as described then that should be that.
This is literally the whole point of free software. That you know exactly what the software is doing.
>>54190487
Proprietary software should not exist, because it's existence only legitimizes the idea that users should not be in control of their own machines and that free software is just an "alternative" for weirdos and nerds.
>>54190448
Why should it be? Why do you feel entitled to someones else work?
>>54190346
so 1 person can buy a fancy chair, take it apart to see how it was done, build a similar one for way cheaper and sell for cheaper without the original chair maker getting ANYTHING?
Oh my!!!!!
stop hating capitalism you piece of shit commie
>>54190509
>renting music
ktard
>>54190480
I already have, are you slow or something?
The user has the right to not only own but also control his software in any way he wants.
>>54190487
>free software is communism
It's the opposite of communism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69ZyX5sN2NA
>>54190520
You can choose what you put on your machine
Or you can not get a machine
you have those freedom
you are not entitled to everything everyone created
>>54190555
>you can choose to be enslaved
>>54190543
>implying you buy music
>implying you don't just pirate it
>>54190555
I don't have to run YOUR software on MY machine.
>>54190547
>proprietary software should be abolished!
>private property should be abolished!
Same fucking shit. Commie scum should have been worked to death in their gulag worker utopias.
>>54190547
>The user has the right to not only own but also control his software in any way he wants.
But that is not true
theres no such right in any law or anything comparable to an idea of that is even considered
you can choose to not use software, if you dont like it
>>54190525
I'm not entitled to someone else's work. I can't demand that you release source code for your projects, that's not how free software works.
I am, however, entitled to know what is running on my own system.
>>54190567
>he pays monthly to stream data
ok tard
>>54190489
>So all software should be free because you feel entitled to be in control of your computing?
No, I want other coders to realize that freedom is more important than revenue from proprietary software (Note that I did not say coding in general). I don't feel entitled to shit, I just want everyone else to value freedom more.
>>54190518
>>54190507
Ok I have come up with a solution.
Developer produces software, they send the source code to a trusted third party (think ssl certs), they verify the code isn't doing anything malicious, verify its fit for purpose, etc etc
The software can then be sold with the certification from the trusted third party using a md5 hash or whatever to make sure its legit, and everyone is happy :-)
>>54190571
propietary software is not private property. you do not own propietary software. you're the one against private property, which is free software
>>54190228
But the video answers your question in a simple way why would I type that shit out for you. Oh wait you don't actually want an answer.
What incentive is there for someone to spend countless hours up each night trying to improve their software? Does gratitude pay bills? Wow you know what, I want to come to everyones house and just take all of your stuff and I will just say thank you as payment.
>>54190570
that is correct
>>54190574
You didn't understand that sentence, didn't you?
>>54189995
>I'm entitled to the fruits of others labors without cost or restriction
all of my nope
it's cool if someone goes hey, have this for free and use it however you want, but it's totally unreasonable to demand that from everyone in regards to everything
>>54190584
how would you know without the source code?
>>54190571
>be me
>write my own, proprietary software
>use it
>the property stays mine
>be me
>write proprietary software
>give it to others (aka give away my property)
>claim that somehow the property that is now theirs is actually mine
nice try, Ivan! the former describes a healthy capitalist culture, the latter, a commie hellhole.
>>54190571
Free software is the same as having private property you stupid fuck. Opposing free software is opposing the right to private ownership.
You are basically arguing that I have the right to invade your home and take some of it and prevent you from accessing it.
>>54190574
>theres no such right in any law or anything comparable to an idea of that is even considered
There SHOULD be, did you see OP?
And yeah, there are loads of things that are comparable. If I sell food, I am required by law to list the ingredients for example.
>you can choose to not use software, if you dont like it
Yeah, you can choose not to pay taxes too, by not having a job.... Your argument is banal and shitty.
>>54190590
>I just want everyone else to value freedom more.
What does that mean in real world?
>>54190601
>What incentive is there for someone to spend countless hours up each night trying to improve their software?
Money you fucking idiot. Just because software is free doesn't mean you can't have a contract with a company to have the creation of that project paid for.
Also quick question, is this free software thing a leftie or right wing idealism? I will use this as my main political stance from now on to avoid you free software shills getting in power
>>54190257
nice theoretical argument but name me one paid open source program
>>54190473
I am sorry but I simply don't see the Issue here. Some people believe that software should be free and as a consequence use open source software, others do not subscribe to that believe and instead use proprietary software. I don't see why there should ever be a conflict between these two groups, seeing as they probably won't interact in some sort of manner, seeing that the one side won't force the other to use their software (which would be idiotic), so they should coexist just fine.
In fact the only issue I could see was if someone tried to patent a specific algorithm, which is retarded, seeing how you obviously can't hold a patent on math.
>>54190656
Red Hat Linux Enterprise
>>54190628
You wouldn't, which is why I need the source code.
You're missing the point, I can't demand the source code for other projects out of the blue... That's not within my rights. But for stuff YOU sell/distribute to ME, I _can_ demand it.
>>54190612
I pointed out why that sentence was garbage.
you seem to now got nothing
>>54190651
So in other words, there is companies that will pay you to sit around doing nothing?
Proprietary software is like buying a microwave that prevents you from looking inside.
It could have cameras spying into your house and you would never know because you aren't allowed to know how the black box microwave works.
> herpderp arguing 'free' software
>>54190656
Ubuntu One
>>54190662
yeah nice try but they don't charge for software but for support, I said a open source program that's paid, not with paid support
>>54190647
>And yeah, there are loads of things that are comparable. If I sell food, I am required by law to list the ingredients for example.
And? Anything short of source code is not free in the Stallmanist book
theres no way to know without source code
and with that you got everything
>>54190652
It's left wing fascism.
>>54190697
ubuntu one is a store that sells music and such, not a piece of software that you have to pay for.
>>54190593
No, because it doesn't cover the four freedoms.
>the freedom to run the program as I want, however I want, for whatever reason I want
>the freedom to study the code
>the freedom to modify the code, for whatever reason
>the freedom to share those modifications, for whatever reason
>>54190698
Lightning Browser (see the Play Store)
>>54190675
>But for stuff YOU sell/distribute to ME, I _can_ demand it.
so you buy Borderlands 3
you want source code for that, right?
>>54190574
The only reason there isn't a law like that is that legislators couldn't originally envision any of this and that legislation is both slow and lobby driven.
>>54190656
>theoretical argument
>implying it's not already happening
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software
>>54190683
The company pays a team of coders to build software that is then free but only delivered to the company. The company has the sourcecode and can do what it wants (release it to the public, have the team improve it further).
>>54190718
I don't get the actual software without paying.
The more I think about this the more it becomes apparent you people are deluded.
All these comparisons that buying a radio and then being able to fix it, or buying a chair and learning how its made and then copying it are completely retarded. You don't get given the instructions as to how these were made (software is after all a series of instructions), you just have the physical raw item. I sell you a piece of software you have the raw item, is it broken? Then you may be able to change some settings in the software to fix it, you are then free to tell your friends how you fixed it, as with a broken radio
You buy a chocolate bar, or a fast food item, you don't get access to their secret recipes, and this shit has been around for many years before software existed - so what's the problem? Should all companies be required to tell everyone their instructions as to how their products are made?
>>54189995
>those shoes
Jesus Christ
>>54190698
>>54190732
Also there is a version of RHEL with no support that costs 50$, so they actually do charge for the distribution independently
ITT: Retards don't know the difference between Libre and Gratis.
>>54190013
Software devs aren't slaves
They get paid to make software
It costs money to produce good software
Pay for the fuckin software you worthless neets
>>54190749
P.S. the gratis community version is Fedora.
>>54190555
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
>>54190746
only that all proprietary software also don't allow you to study how they are working.
you can buy a radio, take it apart and fuck around to learn how it was made, do the same with Windows, and get yourself in court
>>54190712
Figures; the lefty attitude to everything seems to be 'why should I have to work? everything should be given for free'
I've just about managed to get my girlfriend to vote for Trump (I can't vote in the US unfortunately)
>>54190735
>you want source code for that, right?
Yeah, preferrably
>inb4 hurr durr how would games be profitable
The gameplay is copyrightable
The artwork is copyrightable
The story is copyrightable
The servers the multiplayer game is hosted on are not free of charge, so the studio can charge money for playing multiplayer (like WoW)
Game studios would still make money.
>>54190767
>They get paid to make software
They can still get paid to make free software. Libre isn't the same as gratis, read the fucking thread you gigantic quadruplenigger.
Are propietary cucks really this brainwashed?
>>54190739
Well that and the fact its absolutely crazy
software development cost money, hundreds thousands hours for stuff like photoshop, autocad,
how in the flying fuck do you imagine projects going forward if such law would exist? Programmers would be just hobbiests?
>>54190767
FREE
as
in
freedom
of
speech
>>54190656
Oracle Linux
>>54190652
>>54190712
It's liberalism, which is now mostly regarded as conservatism. Only the fools in this thread crying "communism" and those who don't understand the difference between gratis and libre would call this ideology left wing, let alone facism (of which it is actually the opposite).
>>54190821
>Oracle
>Linux
Solaris is Unix and has nothing to do with the Linux Kernel.
>ITT: People who non-ironically can't tell the difference between free as in free speech and free as in free beer
>>54190746
See, the people believing in free software simply won't buy or use your program then, if you don't release the source code. You have no right that someone has to buy or use your work.
>>54190805
Yeah, just like open source Google software, Apple software, IBM software, Linux, HP software, etc are "hobbiests"
>>54190793
how exactly would they make money?
SO I am sitting here
they released game, lets assume singleplayer
its opensource so some group forked it
I download the fork and play it
where do I get charged? who get charged?
>>54190791
>lefty
Free as in "freedom", which is championed by the right... non?
>>54190839
>Solaris is Unix and has nothing to do with the Linux Kernel.
I'm not talking about Solaris you stupid shit for brains.
I'm talking about Oracle's Linux distro
https://www.oracle.com/linux/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Linux
>>54190858
They only open source parts of their software for 'charity', e.g. to make themselves look 'good' to you freetards. None of them companies would have got anywhere without proprietary software
>>54190872
Freedom to do as and what you chose. Not be given a free ride in life
>>54190746
>Implying free software = open source
It's more about licensing really
By your analogy, proprietary software is more like "You're only allowed to eat that chocolate bar like I say you can, or I'll sue you"
>>54190861
Even if they fork it, the game is totally different.
Do you know why most open source games are shit? They have crappy artwork and shitty stories. This has nothing to do with good or bad programming.
Stop replying to the proprietary software troll.
It's a paid MS pajeet earning 3 rupees per post.
>>54190858
You are so dense that you dont even understand that not every type of software can be driven by userbase as googles approach?
>>54190897
>Not be given a free ride in life
This is not what free software is about, can you read?
>>54190885
>he actually thinks these companies make their revenue from software
Google is an ad company
Apple makes computer (hardware)
IBM make servers and offer services
HP does the same
Proprietary software is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of these companies' revenue.
>>54190030
With that logic petrol should be free because you paid for the car.
>>54190515
>>54190515
>>54190515
This is literally the most important post ITT. The free software movement is not trying to "outlaw" propietary software, it's trying to persuade the general population that computing freedom is more important than revenue.
Just like personal privacy is more important than the potential frustration of a hypothetical criminal act.
Supporting propietary software is deliberately giving away your computing freedoms. Your computer should be able to do what you want it to do and not what someone else wants it to do.
>>54190948
there's no such thing as a "consumable" in computing, unless you mean the electricity powering your computer, because that's certainly not free
>>54190805
The vast majority of users are utterly incompetent. They wouldn't even know where to find free alternatives. Having no buyers certainly won't be a problem.
I'm also not saying that people should be allowed to simply copy paste the code and distribute it themselves. I'm sure we could find a way to offer some legal protection there.
And people modifying the software they bought for their own use, what's the problem with that?
>>54190920
>free software means community developed
This is simply not true. While community contributions are sometimes accepted, the Linux kernel has only a handful developers that have full control.
For Google's software, that is exclusively written by Google engineers.
>>54190962
>>54190948
You pay for hosting, this is fair. You pay for help desk and support agreements, this is fair.
>>54189995
>why SHOULD we have freedom?
Nice question, retard.
Proprietary software is considered unethical and harmful, so it is a moral stance. It's like asking "why SHOULD people respect each other" or "why SHOULD you not steal".
Just read free software definition, it's all explained there, if you are not completely retarded or too edgy to appreciate freedom.
>>54190861
>SO I am sitting here
>they released game, lets assume singleplayer
>its proprietary so some group cracked it
>I download the rip and play it
>no one gets any money
>SO I am sitting here
>having a contract with a company to create a game released under GPL
>the company then includes ads or some shit or even sell the game for a price
>company makes money, coder makes money
Both cases include a free (as in gratis) alternative, only the latter one is free as in freedom. The company is basically dependent on people buying the game from them instead of downloading it for free, much like it is now (minus the cracking and law breaking part)
>>54190013
>you should work for free
sounds like slavery to me
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you proprietary slave? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at Harvard, and I’ve been involved in numerous free software projects, and I have contributed to over 300 core-utils for GNU. I am skilled in Lisp and I’m St. IGNU-cius, saint of the Church of Emacs. You are nothing to me but just another unethical non-free software advocate. I will distribute the fuck out of your source code with freedom the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit about me and the GPL on the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my colleagues at FSF and your binaries are being reversed engineered right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your copyright. You're fucking dead, kid. Free software can be anywhere, anytime, and it can ensure your freedom in over four ways, and that’s just with the GPLv2. Not only am I extensively skilled at C hacking, but I have access to the source of the entire GNU userland and core-utils and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable proprietary code off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what ethical retribution your little “clever” program was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have ensured your users' freedom. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit free as in freedom all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
>>54191007
free software does not mean free as in free beer, it means free as in freedom.
>>54191007
Nice strawman. I never said anything about working for free.
>implying software must be sold in order to make money
>implying free software implies it can't be sold
>>54190978
if your software was actually good, you wouldn't need support
>>54191025
>>implying software must be sold in order to make money
wew nice logic
>let's pull money out of thin air
this is you
>>54191023
And even if it was, you'd still have to pay for
>hotline support
>SLAs
>MLAs
>hosting
etc
>>54191007
Nobody said that.
You should work for freedom, though.
Unless you are a hopeless cuck.
>>54191064
>You should work for freedom
Ok, Mr. Gibson
>>54191048
Mom pays for everything: the post.
>>54191048
See >>54191061
By your logic, Google engineers, Linux kernel devs etc wouldn't be paid for what they do, but they obviously are.
>>54191039
>he thinks software is stagnant
Software is ever-evolving. There is no such thing as permanently feature complete software.
>>54189995
if i paid for it and its installed on my computer i should be free to use or manipulate that software however I see fit
Proprietary trolls are so funny. They think that making the same tired argument that's been de-bunked a thousand times frustrates us, when, in fact, bystanders get persuaded to side with us when they see how we eloquently demonstrate their fallacies falling apart.
>>54190978
Okay I also pay for oil and new tires, but nowhere in that does the gas station receive money.
"Hurrdurr I drove to the furniture store, that means I'm entitled to this chair for free because I already paid for the gas to get here"
You and everyone else in this thread are spergs, even if all software was open source none of you would ever actually look at the source code.
>>54191095
In this moment I am euphoric.
Not because of any phony proprietary software.
But because I am enlightened by my own freedom.
>>54191188
What an ugly person must you be to make fun of freedom.
>>54191169
>Okay I also pay for oil and new tires, but nowhere in that does the gas station receive money.
>"Hurrdurr I drove to the furniture store, that means I'm entitled to this chair for free because I already paid for the gas to get here"
wtf are you even rambling about, I never said any thing that could be interpreted like this at all.
>none of you would ever actually look at the source code.
I've contributed to libpcap in the past and I'm currently trying to get a patch in the Linux mainline.
>>54191188
>>54191169
>even if all software was open source none of you would ever actually look at the source code.
Yeah, like no one ever checks the code on other free or open source software, right? (That was sarcasm, by the way, people do).
>>54190897
That's what "free" software means. It doesn't mean a "free for all".
Unfortunately, you are living up to the stereotype of the "right wing" retard...
Only real result of free software is that the customers are getting fucked in the ass even harder. And don't try to pretend that FOSS can have a viable business model when customers pay for the software.
>>54191275
>Only real result of free software is that the customers are getting fucked in the ass even harder
Wrong. The result of free software is that the costumer can be sure and certain that his computing freedoms will be respected and that the software will not do anything he/she does not want it to do.
>And don't try to pretend that FOSS can have a viable business model when customers pay for the software.
Even if that were true, that just means that you would have to come up with a different business model. Profit is NOT more important than freedom.
>>54191275
>And don't try to pretend that FOSS can have a viable business model when customers pay for the software.
Don't worry, I don't have to pretend for that. It's already happening.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software
>>54191319
Notice than only few of the examples have actually any significance.
Interesting point is "Selling professional services". Guess who pays most of it? Enterprises. I can tell you from my own experience, it can be fucking hell.
>>54191401
>Interesting point is "Selling professional services"
Well, surprise surprise, the computer industry has never made any real money from home consumers. All the big money has always been from corporate/enterprise settings.
I mean, there's a reason why Intel is sacking all their desktop computing staff in order to focus more on IoT and servers.
>>54191435
>Well, surprise surprise, the computer industry has never made any real money from home consumers.
My point wasn't "a surprise" that enterprises are most profitable, but the fact many customers consider these services as if you should serve them unlimitedly and have very little common sense. How many times I've heard customer to say that they want result this week, but can't provide required input data?
Companies who deal in this, want to productize as much as they can and increase the profit margin. That's the reality of your FOSS business model.
>>54190027
>>54191318
>The result of free software is that the costumer can be sure and certain that his computing freedoms will be respected and that the software will not do anything he/she does not want it to do.
If only...
There is no way that FOSS writers can assure or indemnify users against law suits issued by 3rd parties who claim to have IP that is infringed by the item in question.
Look at how much money Microsoft extracts from Android users. Two Billion dollars a year. Outfits as big as Samsung roll over and pay because MS is huge and wealthy. The big giggle is that MS' claims have never been tested in court and MS has never specified where in Android the supposed violation is. It's a very SCO-type deal.
>>54190898
more like "you can eat that chocolate bar or not eat it, but like hell I will give you the recipe so your lazy ass can make more"
>>54190791
What a fucking idiot you are.
>>54190775
It's not even relevant dumb nigger as it's referring to the kernel
>>54191908
Indeed.
>>54189995
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/gm-took-5-years-fix-full-takeover-hack-millions-onstar-cars/
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/vw-diesel-cheat-mode-mpg-performance/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mitsubishimotors-regulations-idUSKCN0XJ00B
>>54190567
I bought all my music on CD back in the day. I did copy all that music on to my PC that would be theft in your world.
>>54190027
>>54190656
Synergy
>>54190571
Proprietary software is owned by the developer, even if you pay for it.
Free software is owned by every single user. Free software is the only way to have private ownership of your software.
>>54190683
The vast majority of software is not proprietary, it is software made by programmers hired by companies for internal use.
>>54190861
The fork can't use assets and art, because those would be copyrighted.
>>54190652
It is neither really. There are people all over the spectrum. Personally I am an independent that leans towards libertarianism.
>/g/ is full of cucks that let their software run them
Why?
