Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On paying for software

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 279 posts

Re: On paying for software

#231

Post by ghaff »

js8 wrote: post #229
ghaff wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>FOSS basically started as a radical revolt against copyright system FOSS depends on the copyright system in order to operate. If you don't have rights to created works you have no rights to impose reciprocal obligations on downstream users.

It kinda does, but it's an open question whether it's a requirement. In recent years, many programs became BSD-like licensed and it didn't impede the availability of their source code. Similarly, in the world of Minecraft, many mods started closed-source but free, and eventually became open-sourced, because it turned out to be beneficial on its own. I actually like the free software philosophy, but it might be that t…

There's a good argument that, given the success of the open source development model, permissive licenses are better because they put fewer roadblocks in the way of participation. And I tend to be in that camp. No argument about the problems of copyright terms though I'm not sure how relevant that is to software relative to software copyrightability generally.

Re: On paying for software

#232

Post by dragonwriter »

js8 wrote: post #229
ghaff wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>FOSS basically started as a radical revolt against copyright system FOSS depends on the copyright system in order to operate. If you don't have rights to created works you have no rights to impose reciprocal obligations on downstream users.

It kinda does, but it's an open question whether it's a requirement. In recent years, many programs became BSD-like licensed and it didn't impede the availability of their source code. Similarly, in the world of Minecraft, many mods started closed-source but free, and eventually became open-sourced, because it turned out to be beneficial on its own. I actually like the free software philosophy, but it might be that t…

> I actually like the free software philosophy, but it might be that the copyleft clause is not required if there is enough rational self-interest.

At least RMS’s form of the Free Software philosophy sees preventing non-free software, not encouraging free software, as the highest goal. In this version of the philosophy, tools that prevent even a small amount of non-free software being made are valuable even if they don't do anything to encourage free software (and even if they impede it somewhat.)

Re: On paying for software

#233

Post by shoo »

progval wrote: post #201
user5994461 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expect 500 euros per day for a cheap developer in Eastern Europe. Maybe similar for Indian outsourcing or Latin American. Expect over a 1000 dollars per day for a qualified developer in a first world location. Point being. No individual can pay that much and the develop should rather get a day job unless the software has high earning potential.

> No individual can pay that much and the develop should rather get a day job You could create a cooperative of users that hires one or two developers to work for all of them.

this is probably not too dissimilar from starting a business that grows a collection of users willing to pay fees to receive custom patches / support for the open source software

Re: On paying for software

#234

Post by michaelmrose »

ropeadopepope wrote: post #152
michaelmrose wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Open source, on the other hand, is like trying to shave with a razor blade with no handle. It's a hard sell to get people to donate to projects that they know are going to cut them at some point." This sounds whiny and more importantly it isn't true its hard to get people to pay for things that they can have for free full stop. Don't make things more complicated than they are.

> This sounds whiny Are you an OSS developer by chance? > its hard to get people to pay for things that they can have for free full stop. The Apple third party app ecosystem proves you wrong. Users are willing to pay for good software, even if there are free alternatives available.

You failed to prove me wrong or in fact to understand the point I was making.

People are disinclined to fund open source projects that they can get for free.

If you rely on voluntary donations you will find yourself poor.

They may be willing to pay for value added only if getting something for nothing isn't an option.

Re: On paying for software

#235

Post by ropeadopepope »

michaelmrose wrote: post #234
ropeadopepope wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sounds whiny Are you an OSS developer by chance? > its hard to get people to pay for things that they can have for free full stop. The Apple third party app ecosystem proves you wrong. Users are willing to pay for good software, even if there are free alternatives available.

You failed to prove me wrong or in fact to understand the point I was making. People are disinclined to fund open source projects that they can get for free. If you rely on voluntary donations you will find yourself poor. They may be willing to pay for value added only if getting something for nothing isn't an option.

> You failed to prove me wrong or in fact to understand the point I was making.

Then communicate your point better. Losing the hostility would be a great start.

Re: On paying for software

#236

Post by carapace »

afarrell wrote: post #148
carapace wrote: post #115

I've always felt that charging money for software is dumb. I, as a programmer, think about saying to other people that they cannot use a piece of software that is already written unless they give me money, is a damn ridiculous idea. Software is wealth. If I had a gold coin that had the property that I could give it to you and still have it, and that both coins would increase in value when I did, and that you and I bo…

> Charging people to use your solution after it's been developed is the stupid thing to do, IMO I think this is the core of what I disagree with in your post. Imagine 3 scenarios: 1) I have a problem that I'd like solved and I go searching for a solution. After a while, I come across a reddit post where someone says "oh, you're trying to reticulate splines? You should buy ReticulatorPro for $50. I use it and its grea…

> In the world you propose, option #1 is impossible.

You can still send $50 to the creator of ReticulatorPro?

But that's not quite your point, is it?

You're saying that I, as a developer, should be able to work on a product that doesn't have enough qualified demand (pre-sales or crowd-funds) upfront to pay for its development costs, and expect to cover my gamble by requiring customers to give me money before allowing them to use it after I've already written it? Is that right?

Re: On paying for software

#237

Post by [deleted] »

mikece wrote: post #8
ahati wrote: post #4

I believe corporate red tape one of reasons to not-pay for a software licence. If you download the trial or non commercial edition, works for you, you would never go through chain of approvals to buy a cheap software.Meare player is an example that you can think of. Araxis merge, Visual studio, Visio are some to name a few.

Depends on where you work. I've been in shops where developers had a certain amount of money -- $500 or $1000 -- to buy whatever work-related tools they deemed to be helpful in getting their jobs done. Those tools could be software (Beyond Compare and ReSharper being popular ones) or hardware (monitors!) and up to that amount there were essentially no questions asked (the only caveat being if you spent on stuff that…

[deleted]

Re: On paying for software

#238

Post by jrs95 »

rocqua wrote: post #185
jrs95 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes a long time to wake from sleep, sometimes over 30 seconds with monitors flickering on and off. Which monitor displays which desktop will change after unplugging and plugging back in, or even after sleeping and waking back up.

I've had issues on this with windows when using DisplayPort Daisy chaining. Now I've switched to using separate cables. The point being that anecdotally, windows doesn't have it down either.

I believe part of my issue might be that I'm using 1 HDMI port and another mDP to HDMI converter. From what I've read it seems like people tend to have these problems when using converters. So I guess if I were running directly off of mDP I'd probably be having a better time.

Re: On paying for software

#239

Post by andrei_says_ »

_dps wrote: post #225
andrei_says_ wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alfie Kohn’s Punished by Rewards provided hundreds of sources, tested and re-tested proof, and description of experiments proving over and over again that for humans, extrinsic rewards kill intrinsic motivation . If you want your child who loves drawing to stop loving it, reward them. If you want them to stop learning, tie a reward to their learning. It’s very simple, really. Being able to receive sustainable income…

I haven't read the material in a while but I think this was sensitive to framing. That is, I don't think it's exactly true that attaching a reward to something harms performance — I think one has to frame the task as being done for the purpose of the reward. If I am remembering this correctly, then emphasizing someone's intrinsic motivation while also providing an extrinsic reward should be ok. If you happen to remem…

If the reward is conditional on performing the task, it triggers the loss of intrinsic motivation.

It is basically a way to hijack the intrinsic reward mechanism and externalize it.

I imagine if you provide support for he activity, regardless of outcome, and regardless of it occurring or not, then the intrinsic motivation may remain in place.

I am not speaking from memory though; I myself would have to look at the book.

Re: On paying for software

#240

Post by andrei_says_ »

Bromskloss wrote: post #222
andrei_says_ wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alfie Kohn’s Punished by Rewards provided hundreds of sources, tested and re-tested proof, and description of experiments proving over and over again that for humans, extrinsic rewards kill intrinsic motivation . If you want your child who loves drawing to stop loving it, reward them. If you want them to stop learning, tie a reward to their learning. It’s very simple, really. Being able to receive sustainable income…

> If you want your child who loves drawing to stop loving it, reward them. If you want them to stop learning, tie a reward to their learning. Is there a way to achieve the opposite? > Being able to receive sustainable income for doing what you love doing, is a different formula though. What is the difference?

To “achieve the opposite”: give up on your agenda for their relationship with drawing, or whatever interest of theirs you want to promote.

Support it when requested, but give support only when requested.

Think of your child as being driven by their enthusiasm and interest. They don’t control these forces and you do t either. Trying to force them kills them. Trying to direct them suffocates them.

So, be there, celebrate what they celebrate, lend an year to their doubts, feel free to offer a bit of support but never insist on it. Watch it grow and maintain the soil; that’s all you can really do.

Compliments are also rewards by the way ;)

I highly recommend taking a look at the book, it’s in most libraries.

Post reply on HN