There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else. • Hacker News Board

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#41

Post by rubinelli » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 12:18 AM UTC

DarkShikari wrote: post #30

mixmax wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another alternative is that a nimble startup creates a piece of software to solve the problem and sells it to 1000 companies at $10.000 a pop. This way the companies get their software even cheaper, and another beautiful startup is born. With a contrived example you can prove anything :-)

Of course, but most of the time when software is created for an internal use, the company doesn't want to be in the business of selling said product.

Most custom-built software is too tied to internal processes to be useful outside, because a generic solution always costs more (the consensus is 3x). Most successful OS projects that have this source solve a narrow, highly technical problem.

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#42

Post by pingswept » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 12:31 AM UTC

anatoly wrote: post #19

pingswept wrote: post #11

"There is no such thing as free software." This isn't true. It's just exaggerating to make a point. As a counterexample, http://pysolar.org . I wrote the code for free, because I wanted the experience. You can have it for $0 under the GPL. That's free software. The truth is more like: "Free software is often subsidized by governments or companies." But so what? So is proprietary software. With that revision, I don't…

What about the opportunity cost? You paid for this code with your time, which otherwise, if you felt like it, you presumably could have used to earn money. If your time is worthless, then indeed the code costs nothing; is it? That's the point the author's making.

You're confusing the cost to you with the cost to me.

You're correct that there was an opportunity cost for me to write the code. I spent a few hundred hours on it, when I might have been programming for money. Fair enough.

But when we talk about whether software is free, the question is either how much is costs to use it (i.e. is it free as in beer?) or what license it uses (i.e is it free as in freedom?).

In this case, the cost to you is $0-- free as in beer-- and the license is the GPL-- free as in freedom. (Perhaps we can omit the GPL vs. BSD argument here.)

A better counter-argument might talk about the opportunity cost for you to use free software.

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#43

Post by pingswept » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 12:35 AM UTC

mixmax wrote: post #38

lutorm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do have a right to the source code if it's free software. Your argument is analogous to saying that the right to vote is not a right at all, because it only applies to democratic countries. There are no universal rights, yet there are rights.

That's a strawman argument. Of course you have a right to the code if it's free (as in freedom) software - that's the point!. If it isn't you don't. The parent was pointing out that many people feel that they have a right to the source of closed source software because of FOSS. Which they don't.

That's a good point. Despite being something of a FOSS zealot myself, I agree that I have no rights whatsoever to the source of closed source software. I tend to shy away from closed source software for that reason, but so what-- I shy away from horror movies, fax machines, and American cars as well.

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#44

Post by BrentRitterbeck » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 12:41 AM UTC

bayareaguy wrote: post #40

BrentRitterbeck wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software. My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stallman says.

You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software. What about option (3): fix it yourself (or hire someone who can) if it's important to you, which in practical terms means you do need the source. My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stall…

That's odd. I believe the authors of the software I use on my FreeBSD server claim otherwise.

The beliefs of the developers of FreeBSD, Torvalds, or Stallman do not have to power to null and void several decades of legislation and legal precedent. Again, my original comment was how FOSS seems to have given people the idea that every piece of software should have viewable source.

I've toyed around with the idea of open source. I use open source software. I'm typing this in Firefox running on Ubuntu. I use the GNU compilers, both C and C++. I'm simply trying to say that there is place for both open source and closed source. Given the business I'm in, I will never release open source software, and I expect the software I do write will continue to be protected under various legislation.

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#45

Post by anatoly » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 12:44 AM UTC

pingswept wrote: post #42

anatoly wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the opportunity cost? You paid for this code with your time, which otherwise, if you felt like it, you presumably could have used to earn money. If your time is worthless, then indeed the code costs nothing; is it? That's the point the author's making.

You're confusing the cost to you with the cost to me. You're correct that there was an opportunity cost for me to write the code. I spent a few hundred hours on it, when I might have been programming for money. Fair enough. But when we talk about whether software is free, the question is either how much is costs to use it (i.e. is it free as in beer?) or what license it uses (i.e is it free as in freedom?). In this c…

I'm not confusing anything, I'm explaining to you what the original author meant by software not ever been free. Someone always bears the cost; if the user pays nothing whatsoever, the developer pays with his/her time, which they could have used otherwise to program for money. Yes, this isn't what's usually meant by the code not being free, but that is the author's entire point. He's arguing that the usual way to talk about it - the one you recap in your sentence starting "But when we talk about whether software is free, the question is..." - is deceptively incomplete.

The author has a point - one I don't sympathize with much, by the way - and he's explaining it clearly. His reward? An alarming number of commentators here on YC smugly calling him an idiot and repeating with tedious condescention the standard talking points on freedom, gratis, etc., advertising nothing much beyond their lack of reading comprehension and a healthy knee-jerk reflex.

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#46

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 12:52 AM UTC

BrentRitterbeck wrote: post #44

bayareaguy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software. What about option (3): fix it yourself (or hire someone who can) if it's important to you, which in practical terms means you do need the source. My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stall…

That's odd. I believe the authors of the software I use on my FreeBSD server claim otherwise. The beliefs of the developers of FreeBSD, Torvalds, or Stallman do not have to power to null and void several decades of legislation and legal precedent. Again, my original comment was how FOSS seems to have given people the idea that every piece of software should have viewable source. I've toyed around with the idea of ope…

There is definitely a place for closed source:

- limited audience

- not to be hacked together by a bunch of people without knowledge in the relevant field(s), said knowledge only to be gained by years of study and hard work (think enterprise resource stuff)

- software developed 'in house' (think banking, insurance)

- stuff that isn't 'sexy' and that doesn't give you bragging rights.

The point of this is that the vast majority of ALL the software in use could have been open source.

And woe to you closed source author if one day some group of attic hackers decides to compete with you.

That has happened to many software companies that thought they had found a profitable niche that nobody else was interested in.

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#47

Post by BrentRitterbeck » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 1:00 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #46

BrentRitterbeck wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's odd. I believe the authors of the software I use on my FreeBSD server claim otherwise. The beliefs of the developers of FreeBSD, Torvalds, or Stallman do not have to power to null and void several decades of legislation and legal precedent. Again, my original comment was how FOSS seems to have given people the idea that every piece of software should have viewable source. I've toyed around with the idea of ope…

There is definitely a place for closed source: - limited audience - not to be hacked together by a bunch of people without knowledge in the relevant field(s), said knowledge only to be gained by years of study and hard work (think enterprise resource stuff) - software developed 'in house' (think banking, insurance) - stuff that isn't 'sexy' and that doesn't give you bragging rights. The point of this is that the vast…

I am working on my own trading and valuation software. The public will never see the source, just like they will never see the source from JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, or any other firm on the Street.

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#48

Post by bayareaguy » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 1:05 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #39

lutorm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you are manufacturing a problem. If you don't think free software works for you, don't write it. Not everyone's a capitalist fanatic and feel like they must be "paid" for (in money) for everything they do. Like you say, plenty of people do volunteer work without any expectation of return apart from feeling like they've helped someone. How can you argue that this "needs a good solution"?

I did volunteer work for about 25 years. I've spent a lot of time in that realm and thought a lot about it. I don't mean to imply that what is currently being done must stop. But I agree with the author that his time has value, so if other people expect him to keep giving it away for free, it's basically a parasitic expectation. If he wants to give it away for free, that's his choice. But if he isn't independently we…

Compared to your situation I feel less sympathy for Mr. Tarver since much of his work took place in a university environment and while he claims to have spent 20 years developing the ideas behind Qi, he obviously didn't profit from those efforts in the way that he may have wanted.

But I doubt he would have been as critical of government support for projects had his own efforts been more successful since presumably the university partially supported his research (or at least didn't take the kind of hostile attitude he would have encountered at many corporations).

I think this particular situation shows that there is a difference between having expertise and having an ability to capitalize that expertise. Perhaps had he spent a little more time networking to find people who would be willing to support his ideas, things would have worked out better for him.

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#49

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 1:08 AM UTC

BrentRitterbeck wrote: post #47

jacquesm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is definitely a place for closed source: - limited audience - not to be hacked together by a bunch of people without knowledge in the relevant field(s), said knowledge only to be gained by years of study and hard work (think enterprise resource stuff) - software developed 'in house' (think banking, insurance) - stuff that isn't 'sexy' and that doesn't give you bragging rights. The point of this is that the vast…

I am working on my own trading and valuation software. The public will never see the source, just like they will never see the source from JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, or any other firm on the Street.

[deleted]

Re: There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

#50

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 1:10 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #49

BrentRitterbeck wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am working on my own trading and valuation software. The public will never see the source, just like they will never see the source from JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, or any other firm on the Street.

[deleted]

[deleted]