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

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

blog.hiri.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 247 posts

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#41

Post by kgwxd »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #4

There's another problem with the "make money by offering support" argument: it incentivizes creating software that requires support, usually via added complexity. Similarly the customization argument: it incentivizes creating inflexible software. I'm not sure there is a monetization strategy that actually aligns with what should be the goals of FLOSS.

If the software is open then anyone can fork it, make it easier, more flexible, better in any way. So your support fee better be low enough that no one is motivated to do that instead of paying for support, and also hope no one ever does it just because they can and dont care about money.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#42

Post by hjek »

village-idiot wrote: post #15
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #4

There's another problem with the "make money by offering support" argument: it incentivizes creating software that requires support, usually via added complexity. Similarly the customization argument: it incentivizes creating inflexible software. I'm not sure there is a monetization strategy that actually aligns with what should be the goals of FLOSS.

IMHO, the “make money selling support” only really works for products you build your app out of or on. Think databases and message queues, not end user apps.

> Think databases and message queues, not end user apps.

That distinction is not always clear though. For example: spreadsheets.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#43

Post by Topolomancer »

enriquto wrote: post #34

I also believe that proprietary software is morally wrong. I do not care if it has better performance or features; it is just unacceptable on principle. If I'm a fundamentalist for this belief, so be it.

Well, using the term _morally wrong_ seems to paint you into a certain corner. I am curious: where do morals come into play here? Why is a written piece of software so much different than, say, a chair that was built by a carpenter. Would said carpenter be morally wrong as well if he did not want to show you how to build the chair? I am _not_ trying to start an argument here---I am honestly curious about your perspective!

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#44

Post by zbentley »

enriquto wrote: post #34

I also believe that proprietary software is morally wrong. I do not care if it has better performance or features; it is just unacceptable on principle. If I'm a fundamentalist for this belief, so be it.

Would you care to explain why?

Additionally, do you object to patents and/or copyright in principle? If so, why?

Genuinely curious, not critical or necessarily opposed.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#45

Post by rhn_mk1 »

mherrmann wrote: post #26
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is completely irrelevant to the topic. The topic is libre software versus proprietary. The link defends paid software against gratis, or at least misleadingly conflates both aspects.

You did read the section "Maybe you also dislike the fact that my project is not open source" right?

Yes, it's a small part that provides "I think I can't make it" as the only argument. That doesn't really bring anything into the discussion.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#46

Post by throwaway4799 »

dpower wrote: post #17
jgrahamc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it but I'm not sure what you're trying to say really. Sure, there are people like Stallman, there are others who are more 'pragmatic'. World keeps turning. Do your thing. See how that plays out for you.

Key point is this: If more Linux people embraced proprietary software it would help spread Linux. Simple as that really. As a proprietary app, we have encountered quite a bit of resistance from Linux users, usually berating us for not being open source. I think that's short sighted. We need more pragmatists.

Linux is quite spread already. It is present on billions of Android devices, holds a quasi-monopoly on supercomputers, a large majority of servers and a quite fair chunks of embedded systems.

"But it doesn't run games or Excel on my desktop!" Ah yes you're right. Guess Linux is niche and needs spreading after all.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#47

Post by throw2016 »

It's hypocritical for people to continue to benefit from foss and complain about 'fundamentalists'.

Without that level of commitment no one would have used Linux and all the early immature and amateurish efforts, there are people here who know what a horror some of the efforts were to use and the long journey to today. Would any of the practical minded folks use any of that?

That part of the journey could only be made because of those motivated by ideals. The practical 'middle ground' mindset would not have delivered the rich open source world we know today.

If you don't subscribe to the ethics or values driving it it's perfectly ok, but mature discussion needs to recognize that commitment is required to achieve anything. Simply looking at the results and failing to appreciate what it took to get here is a recipe for failure in any endeavour.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#48

Post by zzzcpan »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #36
zzzcpan wrote: post #27

> If we do Open Source Hiri, there is nothing to stop someone from forking it and selling it for less /offering it for free. Your license can easily stop that in a way that still respects user freedom. Even more than GPL does.

An Open Source license cannot limit for what purpose the software will be used.

It can limit whatever you want it to limit, it doesn't have to conform to any rules.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#49

Post by village-idiot »

throwaway4799 wrote: post #30
village-idiot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe you should question why you're monetizing in the first place. I assume that the author happens to enjoy food and shelter, how strange of them.

Are you implying that the author is so much reliant on this specific business model that they would likely end up homeless and starving to death if they were deprived of it?

Don’t be silly, no.

But the chance that they would quit this job and go work on open source code for a living is about 0%. Would you rather they go make proprietary code for a megacorp instead? Nobody seems to single out Google engineers for abuse when it comes to FOSS vs proprietary, it’s always the little guys who get all the abuse.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#50

Post by dpower »

throwaway4799 wrote: post #7

No one is entitled to a business model. If your userbase has a culture of being (rightfully, in my opinion) defiant toward proprietary products, that's for you to remedy. If you can't make any money from ancilliary uses of your product (support, hosting, whatever) maybe you should question why you're monetizing in the first place. Free software is strictly more ethical than nonfree software. Any attempt at arguing ot…

I'm certainly not trying to deride open source. For the record, we have plenty of Linux users paying for the product (see previous article), but I simply don't understand why some people won't buy the product because it's not open source. I mean it's their choice - fine. But it's also our choice on whether we open source or not. No need to abuse us for this choice. I am trying to remedy the issue - I'm writing about it.

As for free software being more ethical, I'm just not sure what that means? You think because someone is giving their time the motive is always altruistic and therefore superior choice? I'm not trying to antagonise you. Just asking the question. I don't think of it as a zero sum game. You can add to humanity and get paid for it. I'm no libertarian, but if you add value, create jobs, contribute to taxes...

Post reply on HN