Tell me, /g/. Why should I write code and give it for free? It cost me:
>Time
I could have spent with my family or doing another thing that would give me money
>Knowledge
Could have spent learning other stuff)
>Energy
I was programing instead of burecratic jobs, for instance
Why should I not sell my code to the highest bidder and instead give it online to a 14yo who won't pay for it because he is a cheap fuck?
>Why should I write code and give it for free?
you shouldn't
Couldn't people just make their software cost money and include the source code with it?
>>52194691
> include the source code with it
Why should I give anyone the source code to begin with?
>>52194648
pleb
Free software doesn't imply you have to give it away for free.
FSF even recommends selling free software if it's possible.
even if it's not yours.
I actually sold some dumb retard full libreoffice suite for 35 USD and a stupid girl GIMP (worthy photoshop alternative™) for 20.
All it cost me was a lightscribe DVD (which I already had), a jewel case (which I already had) and a bit of glossy printer paper (which i already had).
They were both very satisfied with their purchases
>>52194726
In case they want to modify it or help you fix something that is wrong with it
>>52194648
picking the asshole? nice
I don't think you should, unless you decided to stop supporting the product. Then I think it's only fair to release the source so anyone that may have come to rely on it can can continue to improve it and fix it if they want to.
>that image
For over 3 minutes I kept thinking why "girls picking the asshole" is an actual thing. Like, whose asshole did they pick? Their own, or his - and why was it a bad thing? Only then I realized he wasn't referring to actual assholes.
>>52194648
You can still earn money with free software. WordPress is distributed under a license called the GNU General Public License which means the software is free for anyone to download and use , but the guy who made it have gotten millions of dollars from it.
> Why should I not sell my code to the highest bidder and instead give it online to a 14yo who won't pay for it because he is a cheap fuck?
Because no matter how good you are it is better when other programmers can freely add to it and do their thing. Maybe they invent something you can use yourself. And also people stop considering you an asshole and you do ethical programming.
>>52195230
>WordPress is distributed under a license called the GNU General Public License which means the software is free for anyone to download and use , but the guy who made it have gotten millions of dollars from it
How?
>>52194691
why include the source code?
I made it, not you
if you want to modify it so bad, work for me or make a version yourself, don't piggyback off someone else's code
including the source code just encourages people to repackage and resell shit with minimal work themselves like >>52194782 did
reselling free products and exploiting uninformed consumers while the people who made the actual product get nothing
>>52195472
Not the guy you're responding to, but since WordPress is a web blog application, I'm pretty sure he means by making a hosting service for that application.
>>52194691
ok I pay you ten dollars for your shitty little program and then start reselling the code myself in my own program that does exactly the same but placebos faster. kek.
Or better, I just upload it somewhere for free with another license, change the filedate to something earlier and change every fucking comment and every copyrightline in your code. also releasing it with another name and then make a blog and start calling you out for taking "my" code and using it for yourself.
Forget about timestamps, even the creationdate of a file can easily be changed.
>>52195629
Some people (read: idiots) like software to be handed to them on a disc. They don't know how to utilize search engines effectively. They know how to insert a disc into a computer and install software from it. If they want to pay stupid prices for the ability to do that, that's on them.
The idea of including the source code is the idea that information should be free. If you are a shoemaker, for example, you make shoes and sell them. When someone buys a shoe from you, they hand you money and you hand them a shoe. You lose a shoe, they lose money.
When you write software, you write it once and give copies to as many people as you want. To make ten shoes is ten times more work than making one shoe. To make software for 10 people is the exact same amount of work as it is to make software for one person. In an exchange for sold software, someone hands you money and you give them a copy of the software. They lose money, you lose...absolutely nothing.
That's because what you're trading is information. Information is the gift that keeps on giving or the product that keeps on producing. If there were a so-called "meaning to life," it would be the search for knowledge and, its compatriot, the spread of information.
The more information each member of society has access to, the better off humanity as a whole will be. By excluding people access to your source code, you are holding back the advancement of our species.
>>52195890
you also loose where you got the material and to what prices and what tools you need for making the shoe. Someone else can make this faster, better and cheaper than you.... and someone will do so.
>>52195917
No you don't.
>>52195955
So I don't get the sourcecode for making the shoe?
>>52194726
Because you aren't a fucking messiah of programming and make mistakes
Everything digital is a public good with a social marginal cost of zero. No matter how much it cost to make the original unit, once it is a digitally attributable format the efficient unit price of provision is always zero.
>>52195955
I am sorry but I can't wear shoes if I don't know under what conditions the material for the shoe was created.
>>52195972
No, you don't have to. You physically lose a shoe. That is your loss in the exchange.
When you sell software, you don't lose the software, you still have it and can sell it an infinite number of times for no extra work. It's an unfair and uneven transaction. That's why you include the source code. You lose your exclusivity over the knowledge that it took to create the software. To do otherwise is to hold back humanity.
>>52196031
Then I have decided to physically loose a disc with the binary on it. No source for you, so you don't know how I made the shoe.
>inb4 I can look at the shoe
Yeah, you can also look at the binary and what it does. This is called reverse bullshitting.
>>52196031
Holding someone back means also using a license that restricts to do whatever the fuck you wan't with it (even resell it under different names and a bit modified)
Luckily we have this too: http://www.wtfpl.net/
Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License
>>52196068
If you never release the code to anyone who will just digitally distribute it, sure. But a cracked version of some propitiatory software, is just a better product being produced illegally and sold for free.
No matter what your wrote, filmed, or sung if its a file the marginal cost is zero.
>>52195890
that's a shitty analogy
>you give them a shoe and they give you money
yes, they get a copy of the software and you get money for it
you don't give them the apparatus to make the shoe themselves, which is what the source code is.
if you give them the source code, they can then sell "shoes" to other people behind your back, even though they didn't design or invest anything into what they're selling, they just took what you gave them, made a few "shoes" and sold them off to people
it's like you people want to devalue programming jobs and work as a whole because you can't be arsed to pay for something that someone spent a lot of time and training/practice into making and they want to be compensated in return
you assume that it costs nothing to make software but it does. It takes time and money to make these things, so making it free creates an uneven balance in the transaction and rewards people who take more than they make, which is not where we want to be headed as a society
>>52196114
Yeah so why not trying to make it hard or nearly impossible to crack to make as much money as possible until it happens anways, instead of releasing your source right to the first person which then automatically distributes it for free (?).
>>52196157
Because it causes deadweight loss in the economy? Rationally that's what companies do, but if policymakers actually understood the technology they would move to have it be treated as a public good.
Besides in the long run software models like League of Legends will become the norm where a base product is given for free and slight upgrades are sold letting people pay according to the benefit principle.
>>52196140
There is a total cost to create the first unit of software, but the marginal cost for a copy is always zero. It is retarded to charge for the copy. Charge for tech support, charge for add-ons, charge for related merchandise. But charging for the copy helps no one.
>>52196068
You can do that as well, that's perfectly fine. You're selling the disc.
In fact, that's what >>52194782 did.
But if you plan on offering it online as a download, you should also link to the git repository. I'm not saying you have to, I'm saying you should. It would be unfair not to.
>>52196140
Again, you're only looking at the gains of the transactions. You're not looking at the losses. Because you're fucking stupid I'm gonna have to make a sort of chart:
::In the case of the shoe::
Consumer:
+ shoe
- $$$
Vendor:
+ $$$
- shoe
::In the case of software::
Consumer:
+ software
- $$$
Vendor:
+ $$$
- nothing
Do you see how this exchange is uneven?
I'm not making an analogy dipshit, I'm showing how the two exchanges are not the same, and it they should be compensated differently. And I'm a software developer so don't talk to me about devaluing programming jobs: programming is easy. Developing usable, reusable, extensible software is not.
>>52196230
That would mean no new software is created until someone needs a specific program, where the one that wanted it has to pay for the time it takes to create that program. Holy fucking shit.
>>52196262
No, it would be treated like a public good similar to national defense, or air quality. Tax funded grants would contract out new software until demand is met. It seems strange for sure but economically speaking it is actually how software should be made in the future.
>>52196283
>Tax funded grants
I am really interested in this. But who and how should create the new software? Who decides who is allowed to write the new software? All these questions. But! I am interested in it.
Allow me to say, with how humanity works, this won't be real at least for another 200 years or something.
>>52196337
It is decided by political committee. It's like a new road project. A group of voters, or lobbyists say they need this new software project, and money is appropriated by the government to develop it. It is developed and released for free and the whole economy benefits.
This even applies to things like movies, music, games, textbooks. All digital goods would function in a similar fashion.
Certainly there are a huge number of factors making this unrealistic in the short term but it is what the theory says.
>>52196262
People will always create software because people like programming. If someone hires you to write software for them, that is fantastic. That's how software developers should be paid.
Imagine a world where everyone was forced to release their software open source. We'd have far less crapware in the world because dipshit programmers would be less inclined to develop shitty software. Good software developers will always exist and there will always be people who pay them for quality work.
>>52196337
I work for a company in the US who gets a lot of government contracts, specifically military. Since I work in the government division, the money I am paid to develop software ultimately comes from the taxpayers.
With that said, the military budget is horrendously larger than it should be, but I'm not complaining at this time.
Germany, no wait not germany, more exactly the DDR did it this way as far as I know with everything like food, clothing, even cars. All that stuff. It sounds kinda good but it didn't last long for other reasons...
But your idea might mean that there are less programmers.
>programmers should work for free
>"Hey gee, I have a problem..."
>"/G/ IS NOT TECH SUPPORT!"
Why are freetards only free with other people's time?
>>52194889
>>52195985
Sharing the source code is communism (like GPL) and communism goes against all American values. That's why you should only program for proprietary programs that you can make money off of.
>>52196496
You're not even trying.
>>52196465
If there are more programmers now then there needs to be, then its good that they become unemployed and move to a more productive part of the economy. It's different then providing food, clothing and cars through government funding. All of those things are goods most efficiently provided privately.
It's because the software and all other digital products are non-rivalrous (consuming one unit does not prevent another person from consuming it) and non-excludable (if a cracked version exists, anyone can utilize the software). These aspects also apply to national defense, which is best funded by tax money overall and not sold per unit. You don't pay a price for every soldier in the army.
>>52194648
>give it away for free
You can sell open source software on the applel store and make loads of cash because apple users are known retards.
>>52195629
>>52194648
Enjoy writing everything from the ground up, OP. Any libraries you use, throw them out now, they are "someone else's" code after all. Write undocumented software using your own buggy implementations of everything (unless you want to pay out the ass for someone else's libraries, after all why would they just give you their code), and sell your software at an inflated margin in an attempt to break even. I'm sure everyone will notice that it's the superior way and start doing it too, then we can all enjoy a clusterfuck of buggy, closed sourced shit that will never get fixed because developer either already made any quick buck off of it that he could and closed support a month after release, or realised that programming in this fashion is a job that cannot be profitable to him and went on to become a banker or some shit, leaving us with yet more unsupported releases.
tl;dr you are a retard if you don't understand why open source is good and how you can make money off of it without screwing everyone else over.
>>52196257
::In the case of software::
Consumer:
+ software
- $$$
Vendor:
+ $$$
- enough time to require many copies to sell in order to make up for it
Fixed for you, you're welcome.
>>52196595
No matter how much gymnastics you do the marginal cost of software is zero and thus the efficient price is zero. If it is priced,people with benefits between the price and zero are excluded and the wealth of society drops.
>>52196586
>if you don't understand
>how you can make money off of it
I am sad that not all people seem to be as fair and good kind as you.
On the other side, your aggressive bitchass nigger-writing-style says to me that you should get fucked over a bit and I am glad most people that can get something for free -even if the sourcecode is open- compile it themself and distribute it to help other get it for free, duh.
>>52195149
same senpai! underrated post.
>>52194648
it gives you:
>satisfaction
ITT:
>people trying to devalue programming as a profession
>people who think developers don't have a write to decide what happens to their work
>people who think they're gods of programming and will fix bad programmers' mistakes "if only they used open source"
>>52196705
the last line made me giggle a bit. Noone knows the true horrors.
>>52196705
>programmer upset that no one's buying his crapware
>>52196692
>because it doesn't cost more to make 1,000,000 copies than 1,000 means that you shouldn't get paid to make it at all
>>52196705
>ITT CS babbies who don't understand economics.
I forgive you. It is somewhat complicated.
No matter what a dev decides, the bastard in his basement who cracks it is making a strictly better exact copy of the product.
>>52194648
>give it for free
>not even if you pay me
- If is really good you'll get more
money eventually
- If is a small project or doesn't worth enough to invest time/marketing/etc. give it for free and be the hero for a few people around the world
-If is in between the above, take the money
>>52196761
It means you should utilize other business models. The fact that it doesn't cost more to make 1,000,000 copies over 1,000 copies means you shouldn't make more money selling 1,000,000 copies over 1,000.
>>52196761
You get paid, by selling your tech support for the product, or selling related merchandise or by being paid by the government to build it.
>>52196764
>someone could steal my work, so I better just give it away for free
>implying that you can't just make a "cracked copy" yourself to distribute that's just a malicious virus or defective copy of the actual product
If I don't get the oil for my car or my food for free, I am not giving away my sourcecode or my programs.
Sometimes this happens though because I also get a pizza sometimes for free because friendship or just to make someone happy or the script didn't take too long and isn't of any value to me. Silly shit like a script that multiplies your clicks or something.
>>52196850
You could do that, you could also never release your work and then it would retain it's value marginally speaking. But if you don't do it, someone else will make a product for free or someone will crack a product for everyone to use. In the end because the marginal cost of an additional unit of software is zero, it will be distributed.
You can still make money, just not off of copies of the software.
>>52196638
Did you even understand what I wrote, or what is this you're trying to say? First of all you're confusing free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-freedom, secondly I'm not even sure what you're arguing. If you want someone to "crack my software to screw me over", that's implying I would ever make it hard to crack in the first place. I can still make money off of shit without becoming the absolute indispensible only developer without whom the entire project falls to pieces, and that's the point.
This >>52196850
Even big companies (and even indie devshits) do this.
>citations
Game Dev Tycoon
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-29-game-dev-tycoon-forces-those-who-pirate-the-game-to-unwittingly-fail-from-piracy
>>52196906
yeah but there is a difference between making ten dollars and the first person gives your shit to others for free and making 10000 dollars because until then nobody was able to crack it.
>>52196939
But that is just an inefficient provision to begin with, nobody should pay for any copies and you get your money elsewhere. If you are talking about being economically optimal.
>>52194782
You douche bag
>>52196939
If someone takes your software and sells it better than you can, without the deep, intricate knowledge of how it works that is derived from developing it yourself (not just looking at the source code), then you don't deserve to make money off of it anyway.
>>52196969
Since when am I talking about economic at all?
Your own economic as a programmer should be "I wan't to make as much money as I can"
The rest I don't care.
>>52196981
Always online DRM with registration and hashes of your hardware. Nobody shall use my software without my permissions. Thanks adobe. Thanks ms office.
It kinda works for newer versions of photoshop .... anyways that was a shit example.
>>52197012
Oh for sure, this will continue until the public is tech savvy enough to have software treated as a public good by the government. Or enough companies that release software for free and make money of of tertiary products out compete those who charge for copies.
In the future these things will become the norm, it's all I'm saying.
>>52197012
No, that is not what your goal as a programmer should be. It's mentalities like this that create shitty programmers and lead to shitty software being sold.
It's the same as how a psychiatrist who only cares about money would make a shitty psychiatrist.
>>52197044
It's alright saying that this will become the norm somewhere in the futures (if humanity stays alive for so long and manages to not destroy the planet until then)
>>52197057
at least it leads to money :^)
>>52197085
I'm not saying selling closed source software doesn't lead to money. I'm saying it holds back humanity from the future that >>52197044
is talking about.
>>52196483
Freetards aren't really human.
>Freetard
Normally insane, unkeep, brutish, dumb and autistical
>Windows users
Well adjusted, intelectual, hard working, family man, employed and social
>MacOS
Homosexual, smuggish, annoying, retarded, hipster-y and no control of their money
>>52197038
Works better for adobe to charge a 15 bucks subscription fee than it did trying to pawn their software off for thousands of dollars with planned obsolescence in mind. As much as I hate the idea of paywalls, at least they took some hint out of it.
