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

241–250 of 279 posts

Re: On paying for software

#241

Post by js8 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #232
js8 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Proposal to shorten copyright to 5-10 years wouldn't prevent philosophy of free software to function.

It would be additional incentive to release the source code after it enters public domain.

Re: On paying for software

#242

Post by js8 »

ghaff wrote: post #231
js8 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, in a way, that's true. You can make free software more compatible with copyrights by turning it into open source.

But you can also remove roadblocks in copyright to make commercial model closer to open source. Which is what I am talking about, and it would make it also beneficial for the open source developers.

After all, if the open source model benefits everybody, why should only developers make the concession?

Re: On paying for software

#243

Post by dragonwriter »

js8 wrote: post #241
dragonwriter wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

Proposal to shorten copyright to 5-10 years wouldn't prevent philosophy of free software to function. It would be additional incentive to release the source code after it enters public domain.

> Proposal to shorten copyright to 5-10 years wouldn't prevent philosophy of free software to function.

It would certainly not be helpful to the implementation of the philosophy of the part of the Free Software movement (which includes RMS) that wants to prevent non-free software from being created to the extent possible.

Re: On paying for software

#244

Post by reitanqild »

ropeadopepope wrote: post #149
sheetjs wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users or the people who donate to them. An open source project creates no obligation on the part of the developers. Open source licenses explicitly indemnify the authors. Receiving something for free and expecting something more is the essence of the entitled behavior that frustrate and burn out many open source developers. A donation is a voluntary gift. Like a…

> An open source project creates no obligation on the part of the developers. I meant a subconscious obligation, not a legal one. When somebody gives you a gift, it puts pressure on you (subconscious and social) to reciprocate. You see it all the time with youtube streamers, who frequently cater their content to their subscribers wishes to keep them happy. And to clarify, the streamers don't do this because their use…

> For whatever reason, this phenomenon is completely lacking in the open source community. Instead, the opposite seems to occur. OSS developers are actively hostile toward their users, both vocally and how they react to criticism that their software isn't user friendly or respectful of their user's time. Anybody who has spent hours trying to set up a piece of OSS and then made the mistake of asking the developer for help can attest to this.

Not my experience at all. Well sometimes bugs gets closed for no apparent reason etc but I've rarely been shouted at and I think more often than not they try to help.

Re: On paying for software

#245

Post by ropeadopepope »

reitanqild wrote: post #244
ropeadopepope wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An open source project creates no obligation on the part of the developers. I meant a subconscious obligation, not a legal one. When somebody gives you a gift, it puts pressure on you (subconscious and social) to reciprocate. You see it all the time with youtube streamers, who frequently cater their content to their subscribers wishes to keep them happy. And to clarify, the streamers don't do this because their use…

> For whatever reason, this phenomenon is completely lacking in the open source community. Instead, the opposite seems to occur. OSS developers are actively hostile toward their users, both vocally and how they react to criticism that their software isn't user friendly or respectful of their user's time. Anybody who has spent hours trying to set up a piece of OSS and then made the mistake of asking the developer for…

Your response is the customer relations equivalent to "it works on my machine." Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.

Re: On paying for software

#246

Post by reitanqild »

ropeadopepope wrote: post #245
reitanqild wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For whatever reason, this phenomenon is completely lacking in the open source community. Instead, the opposite seems to occur. OSS developers are actively hostile toward their users, both vocally and how they react to criticism that their software isn't user friendly or respectful of their user's time. Anybody who has spent hours trying to set up a piece of OSS and then made the mistake of asking the developer for…

Your response is the customer relations equivalent to "it works on my machine." Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.

Well; if the difference between my machine and your machine persists in the long run it certainly might be interesting to find the differences that makes it work on my machine.

And - if this approach that you are showing here is representative for how you communicate it might explain a bit ;-)

Edit: and yes, my approach has worked for years so either it is something I do that you don't or I'm just consistently lucky or something :-)

Re: On paying for software

#247

Post by js8 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #243
js8 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proposal to shorten copyright to 5-10 years wouldn't prevent philosophy of free software to function. It would be additional incentive to release the source code after it enters public domain.

> Proposal to shorten copyright to 5-10 years wouldn't prevent philosophy of free software to function. It would certainly not be helpful to the implementation of the philosophy of the part of the Free Software movement (which includes RMS) that wants to prevent non-free software from being created to the extent possible.

I am not sure what you mean. RMS himself expressed many times that the copyright term should be shortened.

Remember, the copyright was created in order to promote creativity. If the term was short enough, then lots of useful software could be created based on the source code that is in public domain which was previously monetized by being closed source. This additional software would be an economic win for everybody.

Re: On paying for software

#248

Post by mherrmann »

andyidsinga wrote: post #161
mherrmann wrote: post #9

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linking to this post: https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/

(sorry - I little off topic) Just curious, how did you come to your current pricing? (I saw your blog post about sublime)

I'm not sure if you mean the prices themselves ($18/12) or the scheme "perpetual license + optionally updates for $x/year". Feel free to hit me up on twitter @m_herrmann.

Re: On paying for software

#249

Post by arcturus17 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #180
BTeam wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until someone actually do it, and better. Good luck monetize your proprietary alternative then!

You're perhaps forgetting that people use price as a value indicator. If you take FOSS and package it for sale then people may well buy it who wouldn't "use that shitty free software". Humans are complex beasts.

Or you know, the FOSS alternative might still be 100x weaker than the propietary incumbent. I'd love to ditch Adobe products but Gimp and Inkscape don't quite cut it.

"Goodbye to your propietary business" applies when you have a commoditized product that's easy to replicate feature-by-feature. In which case this is not a free vs propietary problem - another propietary competitor could leave you in the dust just as bad - it's a general vision and execution problem.

Re: On paying for software

#250

Post by arcturus17 »

vslira wrote: post #207

Is there any license that makes software free (as in beer) for contributors/maintainers and paid for everyone else? This way it would be possible to alleviate the free riding problem while providing a mechanism to use software free of charge. Maybe this could work with networks of projects, so contributing to numpy would let you use scipy for free. Add exceptions to personal/non commercial use if necessary. Something…

At this point you're operating a propietary software company that offers a "contribute and get the software for free" perk. You need to manage access to your closed source code and decide what is a viable contribution, etc. Sounds to me like this would have the potential to be a PR and legal nightmare.
Post reply on HN