Explain to me why you think that having ALL software be free is a good and/or reasonable idea.
Do this using principles of economics.
>>54880108
>ALL
No can do. This development model doesn't work under our current economic model
>>54880542
>economic model
Tech illiterate spotted.
Free software means the people have the freedom to help themselves and one another. With this freedom includes the ability to charge money for providing the service of software.
>>54880108
Fuck off back to /pol/ and/or /v/
>>54880108
0 production cost
0 value
Wow
Open source is the closest to a free market on the software world (The best technology wins and get's the consumer support)
Closed source is pure socialism, look at Ms and Office formats, no one can compete becasue no one knows the real format used by Office, so no competitive market, pure monopoly helped by poticics.
>>54881040
Your kikery is irrelevant to technological process
They don't mean free as in free they mean free as in freedom you dipshit
>>54880108
Free software is not about being monetarily free, it's about whether it follows the 4 essential freedoms of GNU or not. Completely free software won't happen because that would shut down a lot of software companies who depend on selling their stuff.
>>54881064
>hurr socialism fixes everything
>ww-e need more goverment control
>implying communism isn't a jewish trick
>>54880108
I don't think that. Anyone that does is /pol/tier retarded.
>>54880108
Nobody sane thinks that.
Games should be proprietary.
>>54880108
Software costs a finite amount of resources to make. Software can be copied and distributed infinitely for free. Therefore, charging for software means you are valuing a finite amount of resources at infinite value.
>“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software” to show we do not mean it is gratis.
The way I see it is like being able to buy a car and change the parts on it.
>>54883489
That doesn't explain anything in terms of economics. Just because reproducing the software is free I should be forced to open source my software? Why?
>>54881162
I am aware of what freedom is. I'm wondering why I would make my software open-source, enabling people to easily steal and redistribute my work. If everything I make ends up being open sourced, why would I write my own software at all? I could just copy other people's and redistribute it.
>>54881085
I know what free as in freedom means, but why would I waste my time developing software if other people could just copy the source code, modify it, and redistribute it?
>>54883526
Consider a world in which I have a machine that can duplicate anything I give to it, and then having cars be able to be broken down into parts that can fit into the machine. Why would car manufacturers bother if their cars would just end up being duplicated?
TLDR:
Guys, I know what free as in free beer vs free as in freedom means, I'm just saying that free as in freedom makes 0 economic sense to be applied to most software. Some? Sure! All? Fuck no
>>54880108
It's not a good idea at all?
Look at Redhat enterprise Linux, the operating system. It's basically just Linux so you might as well make it free, but they offer services to companies like support, warranties, guaranteed stability, etc. And that's something that companies are interested in, but a regular user isn't. A regular user doesn't want to pay 1000 bucks a year for his OS so he can call in pajeet to come in and fix his computer if something doesn't work as promised.
But I believe RHEL is still free as in "open source", just not free as in cost-free.
>>54883600
People develop software to sell something else, or create something else as a means to an end. In the hobbyist world people want to have certain functionality, so they do googling and check some git repos. If it is already there, why make it again? If it is in development, helping them with their project wil make the project done faster so you can use it as you like. Say there's a program that is pretty good already, but you want to add features to it and make it even better. How would you do that if you canot see the source or may suffer legal penalty if you modify it for your own use?
Apple, google, and microsoft are still going to make money on their hardware and their special software that goes along with it. Companies that want to modify existing software like Photoshop or AutoCAD will do so as it will at least give them a competitive advantage against competitors. They are under no obligation to distribute or share their changes if it is licensed under something like the MIT or BSD license, and they can keep that advantage until they decide to release it or some employee breaks the most likely involved non-disclosure agreement.
This is not an exhaustive list of reasons but hopefully you get an idea of how the market would shift for sure but certainly wouldn't cause an economic Holocaust as they would like you to believe.
economics is a fake science unless its marxism
What do free software have to do with economics?
>>54880108
bump
>>54885895
Why ya bumpin my thread son
>>54885710
Nice wrong opinion
>>54885717
Everything has to do with economics when it comes to laws and legislation that affect producers.
>>54887196
The problem is there is no good answer, either way software production stagnates. Don't make it feee and it gets nerfed as it approaches 'good enough'/sellable. You make it free and you lose the institutes (companies) that develop and maintain the code, again software stagnates but in a different way. Software just doesn't work properly in the global economy, shift some things around, and make some alterations to that economy and it makes a lot more sense. Also you should keep in mind that many of the foundations of software are academic, a system much closer to open source/marxism than the capitalist economy.
>>54887722
You make a good point, but as long as people need to work to eat, software won't be free as in beer as well as free as in freedom universally
>>54880108
>Explain to me why you think that having ALL software be free is a good and/or reasonable idea.
Because then you don't have to pay for it (not the we do now, but you know what I mean).
