But you can’t have one without the other. Putting a cost on software is adding a restriction, thus making it less free (as in freedom).
Free software should be available to everyone, even to people who don’t have money to pay for it (poor third world countries, students, kids).
I personally believe, that you should pay for software that helps you earn money. For everything else - it’s everyone’s own decision to donate or not, based on a financial situation, beliefs, political position and what not.
The problem is companies that fully take advantage of open source, as is their right, and then fully expect the volunteer dev to provide support them when they have a Sev 1.
Sure they read the license and saw that it was free, but they didn’t read the part that it was free but offered literally no support.
The amount of money that my company has made on the backs of open source developers is probably in the literal billions. But we don’t give fuck squat to them outside of one day a year that we contribute code back to a few select libraries.
Yeah I think that people should be a lot more willing to pay someone to contribute to open source than they are to pay for usage of closed code. It really should be seen as the best form of charity, like when I donate to an open source project that makes a good education tool what I’m really doing is donating that tool to every school in the developing world and every student that wouldn’t have been able to afford a paid version.
I think that we need to get into a world where showing off which projects you support is a way of flexing, like all these super rich attention seekers need to start funding development teams for apps ‘oh yeah I was so annoyed the librivox app didn’t have ai search tools that I paid two PhD students to implement it, apparently it’s been a real boon for foreign language learners and literary academics but I just use it to find me historic novels similar in theme to events in my own life, you know it suggested shadow over innsmouth, I don’t know what it’s trying to say!’
People need to see that it’s much better to buy something for everyone in the world than just for you, especially because it makes it possible for other people like you to repay the favour and pay for further improvements which benefit you
Well, then you have to find another name for that kind of software and define it that way. That’s what I meant with that being a different thing, because if you look up the definitions and freedoms of the term “Free Software”, the term “Open Source” or “Libre Software”, and most other “free” licenses there is no mention of making the software available at no cost to everyone. It was not even the idea when the first free license was created, historically speaking.
That does not mean that it’s a bad idea. I certainly would support such an effort, i.e. to make software available to everyone at no cost. Also, what’s wrong with doing it the classic way of making goods available to “poor third world countries, students, kids” through donations or state supported programs? Do you think the producers don’t get paid in that cases?
Either way, my point is simply that we are discussing different things when it comes to the freedoms in software licenses of FLOSS and providing something valuable for society at no cost.
But you can’t have one without the other. Putting a cost on software is adding a restriction, thus making it less free (as in freedom).
Free software should be available to everyone, even to people who don’t have money to pay for it (poor third world countries, students, kids).
I personally believe, that you should pay for software that helps you earn money. For everything else - it’s everyone’s own decision to donate or not, based on a financial situation, beliefs, political position and what not.
The problem is companies that fully take advantage of open source, as is their right, and then fully expect the volunteer dev to provide support them when they have a Sev 1.
Sure they read the license and saw that it was free, but they didn’t read the part that it was free but offered literally no support.
The amount of money that my company has made on the backs of open source developers is probably in the literal billions. But we don’t give fuck squat to them outside of one day a year that we contribute code back to a few select libraries.
Yeah I think that people should be a lot more willing to pay someone to contribute to open source than they are to pay for usage of closed code. It really should be seen as the best form of charity, like when I donate to an open source project that makes a good education tool what I’m really doing is donating that tool to every school in the developing world and every student that wouldn’t have been able to afford a paid version.
I think that we need to get into a world where showing off which projects you support is a way of flexing, like all these super rich attention seekers need to start funding development teams for apps ‘oh yeah I was so annoyed the librivox app didn’t have ai search tools that I paid two PhD students to implement it, apparently it’s been a real boon for foreign language learners and literary academics but I just use it to find me historic novels similar in theme to events in my own life, you know it suggested shadow over innsmouth, I don’t know what it’s trying to say!’
People need to see that it’s much better to buy something for everyone in the world than just for you, especially because it makes it possible for other people like you to repay the favour and pay for further improvements which benefit you
Well, then you have to find another name for that kind of software and define it that way. That’s what I meant with that being a different thing, because if you look up the definitions and freedoms of the term “Free Software”, the term “Open Source” or “Libre Software”, and most other “free” licenses there is no mention of making the software available at no cost to everyone. It was not even the idea when the first free license was created, historically speaking.
That does not mean that it’s a bad idea. I certainly would support such an effort, i.e. to make software available to everyone at no cost. Also, what’s wrong with doing it the classic way of making goods available to “poor third world countries, students, kids” through donations or state supported programs? Do you think the producers don’t get paid in that cases?
Either way, my point is simply that we are discussing different things when it comes to the freedoms in software licenses of FLOSS and providing something valuable for society at no cost.