11–20 of 58 posts
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 see more than a poorly written rant.
Oh, 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…
What 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's not free as in beer though.
Oh, 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…
If Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they open source the software, and improvements to it by outside contributors result in them saving another $500,000.
Then, Company Y adopts the software and uses it to save $2,000,000. They improve it as well, which results in them saving another $500,000 and Company X saving another $300,000.
Total profit: $3.8m
Compare this to the alternative:
Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they keep the software closed. No contributions are made by outside users.
Then, Company Y writes their own version of the software for $700,000 and uses it to save $1,500,000, less because they don't have the improvements made by outside contributors. They don't have the logic from Company X to combine with theirs, so they don't improve it, and they don't save any extra money. Company X doesn't save money either, since they don't get anything back.
Total profit: $1.1m
Everyone involved made more money in the first situation than the second, despite Company X giving up their source code to be used by other companies as well. This works completely fine under existing systems and requires nobody to arbitrarily throw money at open source for no potential gain.
Open source is the free-market solution to the problem of inefficiency due to competition--everyone implementing their own versions of software and in the end generating a worse result than if they had worked together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
No he isn't. If Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they open source the software, and improvements to it by outside contributors result in them saving another $500,000. Then, Company Y adopts the software and uses it to save $2,000,000. They improve it as well, which results in them saving another $500,000 and Company X savi…
With a contrived example you can prove anything :-)
"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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You should have access to the source of the software you use, according to FOSS advocates.
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.