There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
lambdassociates.org
There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
1–10 of 58 posts
Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
#2Oh, my. It is free as in "freedom", you idiot, not free as in "gratis", RMS would tell you. And he would be right. You've debunked only your own misunderstanding of the problem...
Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
#3Oh, my. It is free as in "freedom", you idiot, not free as in "gratis", RMS would tell you. And he would be right. You've debunked only your own misunderstanding of the problem...
I think you misunderstood the point he's trying to make. Here's the conclusion of the article:
The problem is that FOSS is part of an equation that has never been properly balanced. The other part of the equation is an economic one and one that has not been thought through. Instead ad hoc and unconvincing explanations have been floated for why FOSS makes money when in fact, as presently constituted, it so often does not and is parasitic on conventional capitalism or state money
It's a rant about the economics of FOSS, not freedom. And you know what? He's right.
Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
#4Oh, my. It is free as in "freedom", you idiot, not free as in "gratis", RMS would tell you. And he would be right. You've debunked only your own misunderstanding of the problem...
I think you misunderstood the point he's trying to make. Here's the conclusion of the article: The problem is that FOSS is part of an equation that has never been properly balanced. The other part of the equation is an economic one and one that has not been thought through. Instead ad hoc and unconvincing explanations have been floated for why FOSS makes money when in fact, as presently constituted, it so often does…
There is a model that deals with this kind of problem, it's called the ransom model (not the most ideal name but it gets the point across nicely).
It was used successfully on blender, the basic idea is you build what you have to build closed source, the risk is yours. And then when you've built up a following you set your ransom price, the price that has to be met for you to open up the source.
If the product is any good I doubt it would be hard for the author to get his minimum wage and the world would be a better place.
Free software, so many choices :)
Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
#5Oh, my. It is free as in "freedom", you idiot, not free as in "gratis", RMS would tell you. And he would be right. You've debunked only your own misunderstanding of the problem...
I think you misunderstood the point he's trying to make. Here's the conclusion of the article: The problem is that FOSS is part of an equation that has never been properly balanced. The other part of the equation is an economic one and one that has not been thought through. Instead ad hoc and unconvincing explanations have been floated for why FOSS makes money when in fact, as presently constituted, it so often does…
Open source is a great thing, but I fear that it has led many to believe that they are entitled to the software (both the use and the source) they are using.
Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
#6"Emacs was supported financially by people working at the MIT AI Lab, which means that it was funded by Uncle Sam. It was not invented by Richard Stallman contrary to popular myth, although he did grab the sources and improved them and tried successfully to claim as much credit as he could. It’s real cost in market terms was effectively many thousands of tax dollars and it was paid for as such by Joe Schmoe."
This is an interesting bit of history. Is that a correct description of the history? How many other now "open source" projects began with that kind of initial taxpayer subsidy?
Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
#7"Emacs was supported financially by people working at the MIT AI Lab, which means that it was funded by Uncle Sam. It was not invented by Richard Stallman contrary to popular myth, although he did grab the sources and improved them and tried successfully to claim as much credit as he could. It’s real cost in market terms was effectively many thousands of tax dollars and it was paid for as such by Joe Schmoe." This is…
Although it contains some truth, I don't believe it accurately reflects history or Stallman's claims. jwz's[1] page on emacs history is more useful.
Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
#8"Emacs was supported financially by people working at the MIT AI Lab, which means that it was funded by Uncle Sam. It was not invented by Richard Stallman contrary to popular myth, although he did grab the sources and improved them and tried successfully to claim as much credit as he could. It’s real cost in market terms was effectively many thousands of tax dollars and it was paid for as such by Joe Schmoe." This is…
BRL-CAD. BSD. Bind. There are quite a lot of them, actually.
Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
#9What an ass clown.
So firstly, it's free as in freedom. We don't mean free as in cost.
But secondly, if someone pays for some software to be developed and it solves their problem and then they give it away then it's truly free as in cost too. They paid money equivalent to the value they got from it, everyone else rides for free.
And thirdly: ass clown.
Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.
#10"Emacs was supported financially by people working at the MIT AI Lab, which means that it was funded by Uncle Sam. It was not invented by Richard Stallman contrary to popular myth, although he did grab the sources and improved them and tried successfully to claim as much credit as he could. It’s real cost in market terms was effectively many thousands of tax dollars and it was paid for as such by Joe Schmoe." This is…
Please go find a copy of Hackers by Steven Levy at the local library and read it. Yes, all of the core stuff done in the 60s through the 80s that most of us rely upon as the fundamental underpinnings of our craft were developed either at universities as (D)ARPA projects, or by a small handful of corporations like Ma Bell, DEC, Xerox, etc. By the mid to late 80s you could also add some government funded work out of European universities and labs (like this little thing called the world wide web that was created at CERN...)