Does Richard Stallman support a business' right to sell their own software? As long as they make it open source.
Who cares what that old fuck thinks
>caring what """"Dr"""" Stallsham thinks
>>55090374
Yes. There is nothing wrong with commercialization as long as user is free to modify, redistribute, reverse-engineer or study software.
Not the best business model though, but it has a chance of success if you look at gog.com example.
>>55090387
>>55090402
> mentally wrecked by the usage of proprietary software
> install gentoo
> experience what freedom really means
>>55090417
how are you going to commercialise if the user us entitled to redistribute your software?
>>55090417
There is free (as in freedom) software on gog????
>>55090444
>implying stallsham can install gnu/linux
>>55090446
write user unfriendly programs and let people pay for support aka do what red hat does
>>55090446
The whole bussiness model relies on comapny's trust to customers. And that's why it's a bad bussiness model.
>>55090449
GOG.com games don't have DRM. And it's less pirated than Steam games.
>>55090446
Instead of handing out the entire version controlled software you could only hand out the source code. Then you can charge money for the software with the benefit of giving the source code with it.
The GPL does not force you to create a GitLab or whatever project for your software.
>>55090451
Ignucius has employees who do this for him so he can focus on spreading the word of the church of emacs and gnu's philosophy.
>>55090469
>GOG.com games don't have DRM.
Ok. But they are certainly not free.
>>55090495
Yeah, but they are closer to freedom than DRM'd games. They also don't require cracking, which makes it so easy to pirate. And yet people don't do this because of the respect to the company.
>>55090374
Definitely not. He does support businesses that sell free software though and also businesses that don't sell software but develop it for a single customer and owner of said software which doesn't intend to distribute it.
>>55090464
this seems like a good way to remain poor
>>55090446
Support.
Plenty of money to be made there, from basic user support, to the addition of specialised plugins/modules, to all that "as a service" crap, to anything that might rely on server computation.
Businesses love support, too.
>>55090531
lol m8, a mechanic doesnt give you a car so that he can fix it for you later.
>>55090565
Yeah, and razor companies don't subsidise your razor, so they can make up for it with the blades la- waaaaaitaminute!
Did it occur to you that maybe cars wasn't the best product to compare software to? Software is after all essentially entirely a service; there is no physical product.
>>55090374
>https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
>Selling Free Software
>Some views on the ideas of selling exceptions to free software licenses, such as the GNU GPL are also available.
>Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
>Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
>The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.
>Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.
>Nonfree programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is nonfree because its users are denied freedom.
>Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn't make the software free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.
>etc.
>>55090527
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat
>remain poor
>1B$+ revenue
>>55090417
Id pulls it off albeit after they drop support. They release source under GPL but assets (pak or WADs) only come with the purchase. Since assets aren't source code it's perfectly cool under GPL.
>>55090626
>slightly reduced cost of plasic razor handle with super expensive proprietary cartridges vs software given out away with a possibity that the user might need support and assuming they're going to pay you instead of some pajeet.
just face it m8, its a shitty business model.
>>55090710
That's false though. Stallman doesn't suppoer anyone's right to make and/or distribute open source software.
>>55090735
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
>paying for someone to right click on a binary, select "copy", right click in a folder, select "paste"
>thinking that's a sustainable business model
>>55090787
Actually it was a very good business model until now. But I think as the smartness grows in mankind, this will wear out. So therefore you are right - in the end it's not sustainable. Until then there are some years to come.
>>55090776
That's the definition of permissive, Stallman does not support using permissive licences.
>>55090886
Okay
>>55090565
Software is inherently subjective. Software is always dependent upon the user's computing environment and task requirements. This means software that is perfect for a specific environment and task may not be equally perfect when that environment or requirement changes. This implies that when the there is a change in the software's environment, the software must also be updated to reflect the new requirements.
"Perfect" software only exists in a context where the computing environment and task requirement does not change and this implies that the software is bug-free in addition to this.
>>55090787
The red hat jews are proving you wrong m8.
>>55090852
But I think as the smartness grows in mankind.
> see picture
Yes. The GPL doesn't stop you from charging someone for Free Software, as long as you respect the essential freedoms.
There are a few alternative business models though.
Big guys like Red Hat and Novell sell support but produce a gratis product. Companies like banks are legally required to have support for their software (which is where Red Hat, etc charge through the nose).
Small guys can do what stallman did while working on GNU. Either get paid to modify free software for those unable to do it themselves, work for donations or get commissioned to write free software.
As for the second point, I personally am considering throwing two grand at the developer of a reasonably popular free software tool to throw in a moderately simple feature that I'd like.
He seems keen to do it, and I'd be super happy to have it done.
>>55090787
If you feel that model cannot be sustainable, then don't do it. Problem solved.
>>55090996
Actually she is pretty smart. She act like she is smart and gets thousands of followers.
>>55090996
>installation & live support
>copying a file
What if you make a free software and then make it nonfree software?
What can licence do in that case?
>>55091025
Does she have autism?
>>55091050
>bullying Akarin
>>55091036
Your question makes no sense. There are licences written for that exact purpose and other which prohibit that from happening. If you were to do it anyway, you could get sued for violating the licence.
>>55091036
Copyright law doesn't restrict you to publish your software as free software then republish the same software as non-free software. You do need to note that once you publish software as free software, you can't retract what has already been published. All you can do is to publish new versions under your non-free license.
>>55091017
Wouldn't be so sure that she is really aware of being a tech illiterate. Speaking of tech illiterates..
> Ubisoft
>>55091036
You can write something under the GPL, and then release a version under a nonfree licence.
The first licence is still valid for the first version though (it's irrevocable).
You also *have* to own the legal copyright in order to relicence something.
>>55091078
wondering how it comes that Ubisoft games are getting worse every year....
>>55091099
"The best decisions are always made with a diverse group of minds, not necessarily a talented or passionate one"
You what?
A group that's 50/50 women isn't gonna be much different from one that's 20/80.
Hell, experience has told me that women in Software Dev are basically men with glasses instead of fedoras.
>>55091099
>Death threats
What's the FSF stance on game assets?
For example, game code is FOSS but you need to pay for the art assets etc
>>55091209
There's nothing wrong with that, because the assets can't control the user's computer, while programs can.
>>55090495
Ho Lee shit you are stupid. Free as in free speech, not as in free beer. You still pay, you numbnutted fuck.
>>55091299
GOG games are neither free software nor free.
I'm pretty sure RMS believes the very concept of money is evil, and that the standard way for a programmer to earn a living should be to sit on the streets with a "will code for food" sign.
Nobody cares about freedom here, we care more about video games and graphics cards.
>>55091149
Good female programmers and good men programmers perform the same, but because there's far fewer female programmers out there, hiring based on a gender quota ill lead to disaster.
>>55091727
>Females
>Good at programming
lol no
>>55091742
HAAH lulz epic :)
>>55091727
That's basically what I'm saying but in a more direct manor.
>>55091742
A girl who has the same experience programming as a guy will be just as good, unless one of them is autistic or something.
>>55091764
>unless one of them is autistic or something.
in which case that person will be unstoppable.
>>55091789
Yep.
There was a rumour that an autistic student at uni implemented the first assignment in x86 assembly because a printing error omitted the need for it to be written in C++ on the assignment sheet.
>>55090646
if you're selling free software though for $X someone who bought it for $X from you can just resell it for $(X-A), no? There are no barriers to entry into the competition so the price will become free.
>>55091817
If someone can do what you're offering to do for $X for free, maybe you should try offering something you can actually compete in.
>>55091846
I'm saying they can buy it from me for $X and redistribute it. They don't have to write a similar program, they're free to share it for whatever price they choose.
>>55092074
Yes, I know what you said.
Why would anyone pay for software when the source code is freely available?
GPL is a dead end.
>>55092200
you're post makes no sense then.
>write cool program for free, spend lots of time
>sell it for $X
>someone buys it for $X and starts selling it for $(X-A)
you had very competitive software, but you distributed it with a license that allows theft.
>>55090787
>>55091025
>>55091066
>>55093509
It should be called "1 time profit licence".
>>55093509
Just make sure your software becomes unusable or deprecated shortly and then sell a new version of it. Or just make sure your software is used by legal subjects who are required to keep up certain standards regarding support or maintenance which you can charge.
>>55093583
>Just make sure your software becomes unusable or deprecated shortly
W-what? How?
>>55093648
set your clock backwards when you're developing it
>>55093648
Like Red Hat for example.
Another thing RH does is lock repository access behind a license.
Another thing you can do is make an arcane build system and not document it, charge people for building their binaries. Or implement a DRM system for subscriptions (DRM can also be free software). Deliberately introduce catastrophic bugs or self-changes in software requiring constant updates to keep it working. The possibilities are so huge, just be creative.
>>55093685
You are aware that GPL obligates you to publicate the source codes to the customer getting the binary, right?
>>55093745
I don't think you understand what he meant. I think he was trying to say that you can use already deprecated solutions so that by the time you release your software, it's already in dire need of updates. And good luck continuing development of a piece of software just from the available documentation and no personal experience with it.
>>55093727
>Another thing you can do is make an arcane build system and not document it, charge people for building their binaries. Or implement a DRM system for subscriptions (DRM can also be free software). Deliberately introduce catastrophic bugs or self-changes in software requiring constant updates to keep it working. The possibilities are so huge, just be creative.
I might understand the thought behind the systemd now.
>>55093509
>write cool program for free, spend lots of time
Why? If it's a cool program that someone else wants, why didn't you ask them for payment for your time spent?
If it's a cool program that no one asked you to do it, why did you do it?
>>55093785
Once upon a time electronics, for example, were made extremely well and they usually stood the test of time. When you bought a quality radio receiver it would last longer than your lifetime, and in the case of something breaking down, you would get detailed instructions on the components and the assembly process of it so with some skill you could repair it yourself or have someone else do it for you without that person having to work for a licensed repair shop because every owner got the schematics. The same deal was with computers or almost any expensive piece of technology, really. Nowadays lots of things (technology) are mass produced and the prices dumped to the point where releasing schematics and making durable products would literally destroy the ones producing them and that is a bad business decision.
Software is also a technology product in a way. So if you are developing something unique or at least not mass-produced already, you can charge high for that software and distribute it with all the documentation and working from now until there is no compatible hardware available at the same efficiency and make money that way. But someone will copy your product and start undercutting you soon. When that happens you need to start making your software break or become outdated and unusable so that you can sell new version of it. Or you can just IBM it and completely abandon non-enterprise.
The idea that you can sell common software today is stupid. No one is paying for players of any kind, or even operating systems. If your software is not unique and/or critical you have to either switch to services or start selling users instead of selling to users.
>>55092846
Because you're not paying for software that already exists. You're either paying for someone to support that software for you, for its continued development or for someone to make modifications to it according to what you need or want from it.
>>55094167
hmmm, but I can do all of those things myself
so how do I capitalize on other people's work?
What about this business model?
People crowdfund your project until you're satisfied with that. Then release it as FLOSS. That way you're ensuring you will not be underfunded and people get their paid free software.
>>55090444
But Stallman does not approve of gentoo. That is unless you turn on a flag that allows only free software and use Linux-libre.
>>55095540
Idk, the whole freedom to have a flag sounds too nonfree.
IF you were given the opportunity to have sex with Richard Stallman and in doing so eradicated all proprietary software from the face of the earth, would you do so?
>>55095916
Maybe if I were a parrot.
>>55095916
You've just described a freetard's sex fantasy.
>>55090374
>be bussiness
>sell open source software
>someone recompiles
>gives it out for free
Simply does NOT fucking work.
>>55096010
>what is RHEL's relationship with CentOS
>>55096024
No, guys, it doesn't work, trust me.
>>55094202
If you can get a copy, then that's fantastic. After you get that copy, find someone who needs your skills to modify that software then start a contract to deliver the software for a price. This is called programming for hire.
>>55096010
So don't do it that way. Problem solved.
