Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010)(mako.cc)
mako.cc
Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010)
https://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html
60 comments
Free Software need free and widespread culture, that's why FLOSS today suffer much. To have developers we need people who develop, who own their machines rooms, and today most live on someone else computer. No knowing the infra, not possessing one means being not on free tools.
For a more modern facet to this issue, I'm surprised there isn't more teamwork around VSCodium, VS Code's free counterpart.
Almost everyone that uses VSCode don't care that much about the editor. They just want something to do the job. Most of the plugins are just glue code for integrations, not a true UX improvements for your workflow. Compare that to to Emacs and (Neo)Vim where all the plugins are about improving your workflows.
The article was published in 2010, and GitLab—an open-source distributed version control system based on Git—was launched in 2014 [1].
I would like to know the author's thoughts on GitLab now.
Do you think GitLab is underrated?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab
I would like to know the author's thoughts on GitLab now.
Do you think GitLab is underrated?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab
Gitlab is slow and bloated but otherwise better than GitHub in almost all things, especially the CI.
GitLab is open core not open source. Forgejo is true OSS.
Is that actually a useful distinction? All open core means is that a project has a true OSS core version plus non-open parts that provide extra features beyond what the OSS core offers.
It can be the case that the OSS part of an open core project has the same or more features than a competing project that is all OSS.
It can be the case that the OSS part of an open core project has the same or more features than a competing project that is all OSS.
There is an inevitable conflict of interest when upstream is open core.
Some features are proprietary, so users of the free edition can't use those features. But upstream also doesn't want to _improve_ the free version by including those features.
For example, mirroring specific branches or a remote repository requires a Premium licence. Filtering branches based on a regex isn't a crazy complex feature, so somebody interesting in using it could potentially implement it and send a patch. But upstream has no motivation to accept such a patch: they already have this feature in their paid version.
The distinction between open source and open core is (somewhat generalising) that an open source project will take improvements and fixes, but an open core project has motivations to reject specific improvements, because they charge a premium for those improvements in their proprietary offering.
Some features are proprietary, so users of the free edition can't use those features. But upstream also doesn't want to _improve_ the free version by including those features.
For example, mirroring specific branches or a remote repository requires a Premium licence. Filtering branches based on a regex isn't a crazy complex feature, so somebody interesting in using it could potentially implement it and send a patch. But upstream has no motivation to accept such a patch: they already have this feature in their paid version.
The distinction between open source and open core is (somewhat generalising) that an open source project will take improvements and fixes, but an open core project has motivations to reject specific improvements, because they charge a premium for those improvements in their proprietary offering.
The constant spam from Forgejo supporters who "are the only true OSS" is very tiring.
I don't understand the distinction. If I can get one car for free that doesn't have a car seat, or I can get another car for free for which I can get a car seat (at a cost)... why is the first one superior? Why is the "no paid addon" a good thing if it doesn't have the addon at all? It obviously doesn't benefit people who need car seat, but does it even benefits the ones who don't?
The core of "open core" products is open source, as per the OSI definition. What do you all want?
I don't understand the distinction. If I can get one car for free that doesn't have a car seat, or I can get another car for free for which I can get a car seat (at a cost)... why is the first one superior? Why is the "no paid addon" a good thing if it doesn't have the addon at all? It obviously doesn't benefit people who need car seat, but does it even benefits the ones who don't?
The core of "open core" products is open source, as per the OSI definition. What do you all want?
It has to do with the way power and incentives are configured within the project, and therefore what can be expected of the maintainers in the future.
For some people/use cases, the threat of developers rug-pulling a tool you depend on is not a big deal as long as it's good right now. But in many situations the tool which has less features but also less incentive to rug-pull wins out.
For some people/use cases, the threat of developers rug-pulling a tool you depend on is not a big deal as long as it's good right now. But in many situations the tool which has less features but also less incentive to rug-pull wins out.
Anyone can "rug-pull" a project, whether it currently has non-free features or not. You can't retract already-published versions, but anyone can make non-free plugins or forks for existing MIT-licensed code (GitLab and Gitea are MIT).
I guess some might think that because they do non-free parts now they are likely to make more of it non-free later, is that the argument? If yes I don't really like this Minority Report approach to judging projects for what you think they might do.
I guess some might think that because they do non-free parts now they are likely to make more of it non-free later, is that the argument? If yes I don't really like this Minority Report approach to judging projects for what you think they might do.
> because they do non-free parts now they are likely to make more of it non-free later, is that the argument
Yes, that's one indicator of how the incentives are structured, though there are other factors to consider too - mostly regarding where the money comes from and who is involved in the decision-making.
Perhaps you find it dystopian that people make predictions about future behavior and use them to inform their decisions about who to trust. It's very common though, and is the basis for the concept of reputation.
Yes, that's one indicator of how the incentives are structured, though there are other factors to consider too - mostly regarding where the money comes from and who is involved in the decision-making.
Perhaps you find it dystopian that people make predictions about future behavior and use them to inform their decisions about who to trust. It's very common though, and is the basis for the concept of reputation.
The parent post highlights one of the core reasons behind the failure of FOSS: its growth was built on a base that cared only about the gratis aspect without any real interest in the libre aspect. They're perfectly happy to take any FOSS they can get for free and pay for any proprietary software needed with the money they saved.
If you have to do something in exchange then it's not gratis OR libre. Whether that's enforced by law or community shaming.
Are there any key features which is not in the open source version?
I have no issue using closed source software when they are doing nothing of intellectual value. Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual value can be understood, and knowledge cannot be locked up.
GitHub does not fall in this category to me. There is of course smart and interesting engineering behind it, but functionally speaking its only added value is to be faster, more wide spread, and better UX than others.
GitHub does not fall in this category to me. There is of course smart and interesting engineering behind it, but functionally speaking its only added value is to be faster, more wide spread, and better UX than others.
It’s a third party platform which can de-platform you at the drop of a hat and cause a big headache. Enough people are worried about that and the broader implications of a platform not governed according to the fundamental principles/values of free software. So I can understand why they advocate for the free software ecosystem to steer clear.
“Intellectual value” is a somewhat arbitrary criterion.
“Intellectual value” is a somewhat arbitrary criterion.
> It’s a third party platform which can de-platform you at the drop of a hat
Yeah right but that's life.
Your argument is basically "someone could stop willing to do business with me so they should give me the means to be independent of them".
That's not a valid reason, that's being unreasonable.
> cause a big headache
My very argument is that a "headache" is not enough. An "impossibility", or "an incredible effort" are reasons to worry. Switching to an other platform and having less cool UI and rewrite CI is definitely not a show stopper.
> “Intellectual value” is a somewhat arbitrary criterion.
What value is there in GitHub apart from their infrastructure, which is of no use to anyone unless you are willing to scale to their level, in which case you're just willing to build a competitor, which I have no issue for them to not give you the tools to do?
Yeah right but that's life.
Your argument is basically "someone could stop willing to do business with me so they should give me the means to be independent of them".
That's not a valid reason, that's being unreasonable.
> cause a big headache
My very argument is that a "headache" is not enough. An "impossibility", or "an incredible effort" are reasons to worry. Switching to an other platform and having less cool UI and rewrite CI is definitely not a show stopper.
> “Intellectual value” is a somewhat arbitrary criterion.
What value is there in GitHub apart from their infrastructure, which is of no use to anyone unless you are willing to scale to their level, in which case you're just willing to build a competitor, which I have no issue for them to not give you the tools to do?
> Yeah right but that's life.
Oh, most definitely. So you gotta do what you gotta do.
> Your argument is basically "someone could stop willing to do business with me so they should give me the means to be independent of them". That's not a valid reason, that's being unreasonable.
On the contrary, we use that general principle every day when making decisions. For example, these aspects could be even more starkly highlighted when you make decisions as a business owner -- because the buck stops with you, and many other people might be depending on you. So you really don't want to back yourself into a corner.
We focus first on the biggest risks, and then move down the list. And the specific probabilities and costs we assign to each dependence might be different based on our cultural background and life experience. YMMV.
Oh, most definitely. So you gotta do what you gotta do.
> Your argument is basically "someone could stop willing to do business with me so they should give me the means to be independent of them". That's not a valid reason, that's being unreasonable.
On the contrary, we use that general principle every day when making decisions. For example, these aspects could be even more starkly highlighted when you make decisions as a business owner -- because the buck stops with you, and many other people might be depending on you. So you really don't want to back yourself into a corner.
We focus first on the biggest risks, and then move down the list. And the specific probabilities and costs we assign to each dependence might be different based on our cultural background and life experience. YMMV.
I mostly agree, but I also rely on GitHub Copilot, CI/CD, issues, pages, and storage (for releases). And that's just for my simple little side projects!
While I'm grateful GitHub is such a great service and provides these for free, I also worry about my reliance on it.
Some languages (Rust for example) also rely on GitHub for package management (I think just for auth though).
While I'm grateful GitHub is such a great service and provides these for free, I also worry about my reliance on it.
Some languages (Rust for example) also rely on GitHub for package management (I think just for auth though).
I think of this kind of thing as related to Lock-In. If some proprietary thing I use were to go away permanently, would that be a (perhaps significant) inconvenience, or would it be a disaster? If the former then there's not really lock-in and its more a "make hay while the sun shines" situation.
So you mean "GitHub does fall in this category" of "doing nothing of intellectual value"?
> Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual value can be understood, and knowledge cannot be locked up.
I've never heard this before. I was operating under the assumption that Free software was to keep us from being enslaved by the products we use, not that it was some kind of intellectual edification for people who enjoy coding.
I actually don't care the tiniest bit about whether coders have sufficient intellectual stimulation, so it's weird that I care about Free software.
I've never heard this before. I was operating under the assumption that Free software was to keep us from being enslaved by the products we use, not that it was some kind of intellectual edification for people who enjoy coding.
I actually don't care the tiniest bit about whether coders have sufficient intellectual stimulation, so it's weird that I care about Free software.
It's both. Free software is a more efficient mode of production because it maximizes the exchange of ideas about how best to build software. It's also a more libertarian mode of consumption because it maximizes freedom of choice for users.
Related:
Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30843609 - March 2022 (3 comments)
Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17226169 - June 2018 (9 comments)
Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30843609 - March 2022 (3 comments)
Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17226169 - June 2018 (9 comments)
Also, Free Software creators should get compensated for their work by current free-riders in the system.
It is not "free riding" to take the software that is explicitly given away, for free, gratis, nada, nothing, and not pay anything in return.
"I want this to be given away free for ideological reasons but you must also pay me" is a moronic position. Pick one or the other, if you want money, just sell the software.
The refusal of "FOSS" communities to use a direct non-commercial clause is an entirely self-inflicted wound.
"I want this to be given away free for ideological reasons but you must also pay me" is a moronic position. Pick one or the other, if you want money, just sell the software.
The refusal of "FOSS" communities to use a direct non-commercial clause is an entirely self-inflicted wound.
> "I want this to be given away free for ideological reasons but you must also pay me" is a moronic position. Pick one or the other, if you want money, just sell the software.
Exactly—it's a position that Matt Mulenweg has now exposed in gory detail as not just a moronic position but an unethical one. You want to get paid? Put it in a contract up front. You want to release Free Software with no extra contracts? Don't expect to get paid—sponsorships are a nice bonus, not something you're entitled to.
The "I should be able to release Free Software for free with no strings attached and also you are morally obligated to pay me" position is inherently an unethical bait and switch. You're only entitled to the compensation that you communicate up front in writing. Red Hat does this right, Canonical does this right, JetBrains does this right.
Exactly—it's a position that Matt Mulenweg has now exposed in gory detail as not just a moronic position but an unethical one. You want to get paid? Put it in a contract up front. You want to release Free Software with no extra contracts? Don't expect to get paid—sponsorships are a nice bonus, not something you're entitled to.
The "I should be able to release Free Software for free with no strings attached and also you are morally obligated to pay me" position is inherently an unethical bait and switch. You're only entitled to the compensation that you communicate up front in writing. Red Hat does this right, Canonical does this right, JetBrains does this right.
> Exactly—it's a position that Matt Mulenweg has now exposed in gory detail as not just a moronic position but an unethical one.
You're not obligated to give away your services. Red Hat was putting (still puts?) in their support contracts that to share GPL patches that they distribute to you as a customer will cancel the contract.
Matt Mullenweg distributes Free Software that anybody has the right to fork freely, although he may obligate them to strip the trademark out (although he hasn't until now.) How could Red Hat possibly be doing something right if he's doing something wrong? What is CentOS supposed to be?
You're not obligated to give away your services. Red Hat was putting (still puts?) in their support contracts that to share GPL patches that they distribute to you as a customer will cancel the contract.
Matt Mullenweg distributes Free Software that anybody has the right to fork freely, although he may obligate them to strip the trademark out (although he hasn't until now.) How could Red Hat possibly be doing something right if he's doing something wrong? What is CentOS supposed to be?
Matt has been very clear that he's attempting to use the trademark as a bludgeon to get WP Engine to "give back" (whatever that means). There was no contract ahead of time that required anyone to give back, and the trademark policy has for more than a decade condoned WP Engine's usage as an explicit permission. All the written communication has always been in favor of WP Engine's rights to use all the IP exactly as they have been with no obligation to do anything, yet Matt has decided that he's owed something.
Red Hat, meanwhile, puts a clause into a written contract that says that they will continue to provide support as long as you don't forward what they give you to other people.
We can get into debates all day long about which one is truer to the "spirit of Open Source" or some such philosophical abstraction, but one of the two organizations we're talking about put their expectations for compensation into a detailed written contract and the other, to put it generously, didn't.
Red Hat, meanwhile, puts a clause into a written contract that says that they will continue to provide support as long as you don't forward what they give you to other people.
We can get into debates all day long about which one is truer to the "spirit of Open Source" or some such philosophical abstraction, but one of the two organizations we're talking about put their expectations for compensation into a detailed written contract and the other, to put it generously, didn't.
> The refusal of "FOSS" communities to use a direct non-commercial clause is an entirely self-inflicted wound.
The self-inflicted wound is non-copyleft licenses. Under copyleft you pay for free code with more code, by making freely available any modifications you publish over the original. Permissive licenses break this, causing a self-inflicted wound. Corporations can just build upon your codebase and privatize your base effort, giving just the middle finger back to community.
The self-inflicted wound is non-copyleft licenses. Under copyleft you pay for free code with more code, by making freely available any modifications you publish over the original. Permissive licenses break this, causing a self-inflicted wound. Corporations can just build upon your codebase and privatize your base effort, giving just the middle finger back to community.
> Under copyleft you pay for free code with more code
You do not. There is nothing in the GPL that mandates you contribute. You can simply use the software as-is, and never contribute. Sit on your hands when there's a major exploit and wait until someone else fixes it, then take their fix.
It is, in fact, piss easy to get around the GPL because it only applies to distribution. If you SaaS or simply do not distribute the software, you can do whatever you want. You can dynamic link all day against evil proprietary software so long as you make the user download the GPL'd bit from a third party.
And this is obvious to all because the AGPL exists to fix this, but is an even worse shitshow.
> Corporations can just build upon your codebase and privatize your base effort, giving just the middle finger back to community.
And the humble non-commercial clause trivially resolves this while the copyleft licenses have spent decades trying and failing.
You do not. There is nothing in the GPL that mandates you contribute. You can simply use the software as-is, and never contribute. Sit on your hands when there's a major exploit and wait until someone else fixes it, then take their fix.
It is, in fact, piss easy to get around the GPL because it only applies to distribution. If you SaaS or simply do not distribute the software, you can do whatever you want. You can dynamic link all day against evil proprietary software so long as you make the user download the GPL'd bit from a third party.
And this is obvious to all because the AGPL exists to fix this, but is an even worse shitshow.
> Corporations can just build upon your codebase and privatize your base effort, giving just the middle finger back to community.
And the humble non-commercial clause trivially resolves this while the copyleft licenses have spent decades trying and failing.
Since this is HN, someone has to be the stickler for definitions I suppose. :-P
It's not given away for free. You are granted certain freedoms (liberties), to wit:
1. freedom to run the program 2. Freedom to study and alter it 3. freedom to redistribute copies 4. freedom to redistribute changes
So it's Free as in speech, not as in beer.
In lots of languages there's two separate words for these concepts: eg german ('Frei' vs 'Gratis') or french ('Libre' vs 'Gratuit).
It's entirely possible to sell free software. It's something I do!
Non-commercial actually worsens the free-rider situation imo. I don't count it as Free Software at all.
It's not given away for free. You are granted certain freedoms (liberties), to wit:
1. freedom to run the program 2. Freedom to study and alter it 3. freedom to redistribute copies 4. freedom to redistribute changes
So it's Free as in speech, not as in beer.
In lots of languages there's two separate words for these concepts: eg german ('Frei' vs 'Gratis') or french ('Libre' vs 'Gratuit).
It's entirely possible to sell free software. It's something I do!
Non-commercial actually worsens the free-rider situation imo. I don't count it as Free Software at all.
> So it's Free as in speech, not as in beer.
See how in my comment I use 4 synonyms for "free", including "gratis"? That was not just trying to sound cool. That was trying (and evidently, failing, given you're not the only one) to pre-empt this exact point.
> It's entirely possible to sell free software.
This is much more controversial in the FOSS space than it seems to outsiders.
There is the obvious problem that one of the Freedoms involves the ability to take your purchased copy and give it away 'gratis' to everyone else, thus undercutting the market for the original author.
And this begs the question: Can I practically charge money for the freedoms? Must it be gratis?
It would be relatively easy to write a license with a royalty fee. Every time you distribute a copy of the fork, you must pay the original author. This would be a cromulent way to get around the piracy problem.
Except it is deeply controversial. To the point where even the FSF tries to play games around "selling the software" versus "selling the service of providing a download of the software".
In practice, no you can't really sell Free Software. Just look at all the startups that were Open Source and immediately shut that down when the infinite free venture capital ran out.
> Non-commercial actually worsens the free-rider situation imo. I don't count it as Free Software at all.
I simply do not care about the designation of "Free Software". It sucks and has painted itself into a corner. Modern policing of it's meaning (especially by the OSI which hilariously tries to pretend that "Open Source" is subject to FOSS definitions) is entirely just hypocrisy favouring the GPL.
If you want to get paid, cash money, just fucking put it in the license. Use a user agreement like everyone else on the planet.
If you want it to be Free, slap a 'gratis' license on there and don't get upset when companies don't give anything back.
See how in my comment I use 4 synonyms for "free", including "gratis"? That was not just trying to sound cool. That was trying (and evidently, failing, given you're not the only one) to pre-empt this exact point.
> It's entirely possible to sell free software.
This is much more controversial in the FOSS space than it seems to outsiders.
There is the obvious problem that one of the Freedoms involves the ability to take your purchased copy and give it away 'gratis' to everyone else, thus undercutting the market for the original author.
And this begs the question: Can I practically charge money for the freedoms? Must it be gratis?
It would be relatively easy to write a license with a royalty fee. Every time you distribute a copy of the fork, you must pay the original author. This would be a cromulent way to get around the piracy problem.
Except it is deeply controversial. To the point where even the FSF tries to play games around "selling the software" versus "selling the service of providing a download of the software".
In practice, no you can't really sell Free Software. Just look at all the startups that were Open Source and immediately shut that down when the infinite free venture capital ran out.
> Non-commercial actually worsens the free-rider situation imo. I don't count it as Free Software at all.
I simply do not care about the designation of "Free Software". It sucks and has painted itself into a corner. Modern policing of it's meaning (especially by the OSI which hilariously tries to pretend that "Open Source" is subject to FOSS definitions) is entirely just hypocrisy favouring the GPL.
If you want to get paid, cash money, just fucking put it in the license. Use a user agreement like everyone else on the planet.
If you want it to be Free, slap a 'gratis' license on there and don't get upset when companies don't give anything back.
> This is much more controversial in the FOSS space than it seems to outsiders.
Free software has been sold since the dawn of Free software, by the central figures of Free software.
> There is the obvious problem that one of the Freedoms involves the ability to take your purchased copy and give it away 'gratis' to everyone else, thus undercutting the market for the original author.
This is exactly why it is not at all controversial to sell FOSS. You can easily be undercut. If you're successful selling FOSS, it's because you've made it really easy for your customers, been really helpful to them, or because they want to pay you because they like you, probably because they know you're putting work in. Free not meaning "gratis" doesn't mean that you can't get software gratis, it means that I'm not required to give it to you gratis.
This controversy is made up from whole cloth. I don't doubt that people are arguing about it, but neither person in that argument has any idea what they're talking about. They are people trying to ride the coattails of FOSS to get rich, as well they should (get rich in any ethical way you can.) But Open Source was a ploy to undercut Free software, and is operating just as intended, supplying corporations with free labor in return for nothing.
If you don't want to be copyleft, and you don't want to be ripped off as OSS, just be proprietary. The reason people don't want to do this is either because the software is not good enough to compete, or they can't afford the marketing and infrastructure to sell or even give away a proprietary product. So they pretend there's this honor system called the spirit of open source where the entire world is meant to ignore the freedom that permissive licenses give until the authors have the time to get rich. When Amazon ignores the memo, they pretend it's the concept of Free Software that's to blame, or even for that matter the concept of Open Source.
The problem is trying to benefit from the concept without actually believing in it, and failing. The point of Free Software is that people have access to the software that runs the machines that their lives depend on. The point of Open Source is to supply free labor to others in order to hopefully get attention, praise, or simply personal satisfaction. If neither of these things are what you're into, that's not something wrong with FOSS, and that's not something wrong with you.
> I simply do not care about the designation of "Free Software". It sucks and has painted itself into a corner. Modern policing of it's meaning (especially by the OSI which hilariously tries to pretend that "Open Source" is subject to FOSS definitions) is entirely just hypocrisy favouring the GPL.
These are two unrelated organizations with opposing philosophies. The reason OSI software is Free Software is because anybody can steal OSI licensed and do whatever they want with it, as long as they do some trivial things that the license requires, such as including a copy of the license, or possibly a credit for the author. The GPL is a restrictive license that obligates the people who distribute the software to many explicit and strict responsibilities that people are willing to sue you over. OSI licenses are not.
Free software has been sold since the dawn of Free software, by the central figures of Free software.
> There is the obvious problem that one of the Freedoms involves the ability to take your purchased copy and give it away 'gratis' to everyone else, thus undercutting the market for the original author.
This is exactly why it is not at all controversial to sell FOSS. You can easily be undercut. If you're successful selling FOSS, it's because you've made it really easy for your customers, been really helpful to them, or because they want to pay you because they like you, probably because they know you're putting work in. Free not meaning "gratis" doesn't mean that you can't get software gratis, it means that I'm not required to give it to you gratis.
This controversy is made up from whole cloth. I don't doubt that people are arguing about it, but neither person in that argument has any idea what they're talking about. They are people trying to ride the coattails of FOSS to get rich, as well they should (get rich in any ethical way you can.) But Open Source was a ploy to undercut Free software, and is operating just as intended, supplying corporations with free labor in return for nothing.
If you don't want to be copyleft, and you don't want to be ripped off as OSS, just be proprietary. The reason people don't want to do this is either because the software is not good enough to compete, or they can't afford the marketing and infrastructure to sell or even give away a proprietary product. So they pretend there's this honor system called the spirit of open source where the entire world is meant to ignore the freedom that permissive licenses give until the authors have the time to get rich. When Amazon ignores the memo, they pretend it's the concept of Free Software that's to blame, or even for that matter the concept of Open Source.
The problem is trying to benefit from the concept without actually believing in it, and failing. The point of Free Software is that people have access to the software that runs the machines that their lives depend on. The point of Open Source is to supply free labor to others in order to hopefully get attention, praise, or simply personal satisfaction. If neither of these things are what you're into, that's not something wrong with FOSS, and that's not something wrong with you.
> I simply do not care about the designation of "Free Software". It sucks and has painted itself into a corner. Modern policing of it's meaning (especially by the OSI which hilariously tries to pretend that "Open Source" is subject to FOSS definitions) is entirely just hypocrisy favouring the GPL.
These are two unrelated organizations with opposing philosophies. The reason OSI software is Free Software is because anybody can steal OSI licensed and do whatever they want with it, as long as they do some trivial things that the license requires, such as including a copy of the license, or possibly a credit for the author. The GPL is a restrictive license that obligates the people who distribute the software to many explicit and strict responsibilities that people are willing to sue you over. OSI licenses are not.
> You can easily be undercut. If you're successful selling FOSS, it's because you've made it really easy for your customers, been really helpful to them, or because they want to pay you because they like you, probably because they know you're putting work in.
What you are mincing words about here is the fact that no, you are not selling software, you are receiving voluntary donations.
It's the same rhetoric as always "Um akshually you can sell Free Software" when what is meant is "You can put it up for sale".
I am not obliged to humour it, so I will not.
> supplying corporations with free labor in return for nothing.
As opposed to FOSS, which is currently ... Coping and Seething in this thread about receiving nothing in return.
It ain't a ploy. We just don't care if corporations use it.
> The problem is trying to benefit from the concept without actually believing in it, and failing. The point of Free Software is that people have access to the software that runs the machines that their lives depend on. The point of Open Source is to supply free labor to others in order to hopefully get attention, praise, or simply personal satisfaction.
The word for that is "cult".
What you are mincing words about here is the fact that no, you are not selling software, you are receiving voluntary donations.
It's the same rhetoric as always "Um akshually you can sell Free Software" when what is meant is "You can put it up for sale".
I am not obliged to humour it, so I will not.
> supplying corporations with free labor in return for nothing.
As opposed to FOSS, which is currently ... Coping and Seething in this thread about receiving nothing in return.
It ain't a ploy. We just don't care if corporations use it.
> The problem is trying to benefit from the concept without actually believing in it, and failing. The point of Free Software is that people have access to the software that runs the machines that their lives depend on. The point of Open Source is to supply free labor to others in order to hopefully get attention, praise, or simply personal satisfaction.
The word for that is "cult".
I think I'll politely back away from this debate, since it seems like you have an axe to grind. Meanwhile, I simply sell the service of 'Making Things That Don't Exist Yet.' Remarkably uncomplicated, and yes, people are willing to pay for that.
I actually agree with you in many ways, but I think FOSS diehards miss the likely outcome of this line of thought: less FOSS will be written.
Everyone still has to pay their bills, but if FOSS-based companies can't survive, the only people writing it will be megacorps funding the likes of Kubernetes, and hobbyists doing stuff for fun.
The entire middle-tier of FOSS companies, the ones that turned to source-available licenses when AWS came for their lunch, will not exist in the future. Either they'll continue to switch off FOSS licenses when AWS comes knocking, or they'll conclude FOSS isn't a good strategy in the first place.
Anyway, I value FOSS, but I value fair compensation more. I don't believe in giving billionaire Bezos anything for free.
Everyone still has to pay their bills, but if FOSS-based companies can't survive, the only people writing it will be megacorps funding the likes of Kubernetes, and hobbyists doing stuff for fun.
The entire middle-tier of FOSS companies, the ones that turned to source-available licenses when AWS came for their lunch, will not exist in the future. Either they'll continue to switch off FOSS licenses when AWS comes knocking, or they'll conclude FOSS isn't a good strategy in the first place.
Anyway, I value FOSS, but I value fair compensation more. I don't believe in giving billionaire Bezos anything for free.
Seems to be precisely what "free-rider" means; entities benefiting from public resources without contributing anything back.
Also, if the end user can't use it for commercial purposes then the software is by definition not FOSS software. That would be a major restriction on their freedom. It is impossible to have a FOSS community that restricts its software from being used in commerce. The emphasis has always been on the F-for-freedom part of FOSS, especially after the schism with the OSS people who don't see freedom as the same level of priority.
> if the end user can't use it for commercial purposes then the software is by definition not FOSS software.
Okay but like, who cares. The definition of "Free Software" is just whatever RMS screeches about. The OSI is rather biased towards them, and importantly, does not own the trademark.
> That would be a major restriction on their freedom.
Then why complain that they excercise that freedom.
Either commercial use without paying back is an explicitly granted and supported freedom, and then companies doing that is fine. Or it is not, in which case restrict commercial use on the free license if you want companies to pay up.
Okay but like, who cares. The definition of "Free Software" is just whatever RMS screeches about. The OSI is rather biased towards them, and importantly, does not own the trademark.
> That would be a major restriction on their freedom.
Then why complain that they excercise that freedom.
Either commercial use without paying back is an explicitly granted and supported freedom, and then companies doing that is fine. Or it is not, in which case restrict commercial use on the free license if you want companies to pay up.
> Okay but like, who cares.
People who care about freedom. The question answers itself. If the person writing the software is laying down the law about how it is going to be used then, as a simple and practical matter, the user is being denied freedom. If code can't be used for business purposes it is a bit of stretch to say it is free software. We may as well call pirated software free software if we're being that loose with language that we only mean price; people don't pay for it either. The "free" stands for freedom.
> Then why complain that they excercise that freedom.
They've just legally given up all the coercive options, so the only tool left is complaint. That is one of the major points of the whole thing - for everyone to have the most freedom communities have to try and resolve disputes by clear communication, vocalising concerns, argument and persuasion.
Although I think you've misread KingMob's comment. Exactly what they meant is open to interpreting, but what they actually said isn't a complaint. "Free-riders" is a technical term for what most FOSS software users are doing. It might be explicitly endorsed by the software maintainer but it is still free-riding.
People who care about freedom. The question answers itself. If the person writing the software is laying down the law about how it is going to be used then, as a simple and practical matter, the user is being denied freedom. If code can't be used for business purposes it is a bit of stretch to say it is free software. We may as well call pirated software free software if we're being that loose with language that we only mean price; people don't pay for it either. The "free" stands for freedom.
> Then why complain that they excercise that freedom.
They've just legally given up all the coercive options, so the only tool left is complaint. That is one of the major points of the whole thing - for everyone to have the most freedom communities have to try and resolve disputes by clear communication, vocalising concerns, argument and persuasion.
Although I think you've misread KingMob's comment. Exactly what they meant is open to interpreting, but what they actually said isn't a complaint. "Free-riders" is a technical term for what most FOSS software users are doing. It might be explicitly endorsed by the software maintainer but it is still free-riding.
> They've just legally given up all the coercive options, so the only tool left is complaint
My previous comment on this was unclear.
The very act of complaining about it betrays the idea that it's "freedom".
Either companies have the freedom to take without giving back, in which case forcing them to buy the software breaks those freedoms, but you shouldn't complain.
Or they do not have the freedom, in which case just sell the software normally.
My previous comment on this was unclear.
The very act of complaining about it betrays the idea that it's "freedom".
Either companies have the freedom to take without giving back, in which case forcing them to buy the software breaks those freedoms, but you shouldn't complain.
Or they do not have the freedom, in which case just sell the software normally.
Public transit companies that make tickets explicitly free and then get upset nobody pays them would get laughed out the room for bemoaning "free-riders".
It may be a "technically correct" use of the word, but it's not a useful definition to include this.
It may be a "technically correct" use of the word, but it's not a useful definition to include this.
The public transit companies are being paid though ? Through tax instead of through direct payment
Are they "public resources" or are they gifts?
If you have a precise idea in mind about how you want it to be used and how they should reward you, put that in the license.
You even have OSI-approved options here, like AGPL.
If you have a precise idea in mind about how you want it to be used and how they should reward you, put that in the license.
You even have OSI-approved options here, like AGPL.
Software developers often just give away FOSS for free, not even charging a nominal fee.
As a result, proprietary software essentially has an unlimited money cheat that they can use to plow into further development until greed starts seriously degrading the quality of software.
As a result, proprietary software essentially has an unlimited money cheat that they can use to plow into further development until greed starts seriously degrading the quality of software.
Copyleft solves this. The problem is permissive licenses that lack copyleft, allowing privatization of codebases.
>>As a result, proprietary software essentially has an unlimited money cheat that they can use to plow into further development until greed starts seriously degrading the quality of software.
>Copyleft solves this. The problem is permissive licenses that lack copyleft, allowing privatization of codebases.
Copyleft only partially solves the problem. A company with enough resources can give you the code and you still can't effectively fork it unless you are also running a huge company, because making an incompatible product that lacks updates would be unacceptable. Other times, companies are so big that they essentially drive a whole open source ecosystem. Look at IBM's disproportionate influence on Linux. We certainly appreciate their contributions but many people disagree about the direction IBM has chosen, and their choices affect everyone because apps are usually built to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Another good example is Chromium. That project is copyleft but nobody wants an old out of date web browser because of security concerns. Even Microsoft could not keep up with their feature development so they forked it. But how different is their fork really? If they are to take code from upstream, it can't be very different.
>Copyleft solves this. The problem is permissive licenses that lack copyleft, allowing privatization of codebases.
Copyleft only partially solves the problem. A company with enough resources can give you the code and you still can't effectively fork it unless you are also running a huge company, because making an incompatible product that lacks updates would be unacceptable. Other times, companies are so big that they essentially drive a whole open source ecosystem. Look at IBM's disproportionate influence on Linux. We certainly appreciate their contributions but many people disagree about the direction IBM has chosen, and their choices affect everyone because apps are usually built to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Another good example is Chromium. That project is copyleft but nobody wants an old out of date web browser because of security concerns. Even Microsoft could not keep up with their feature development so they forked it. But how different is their fork really? If they are to take code from upstream, it can't be very different.
Kind of, try to get hold of all those GCC forks used by embedded companies before clang came into the picture.
[deleted]
If you want the megacorps to pay, then you should license your stuff under the AGPLv3+ and sell exceptions. If you went with a pushover license like MIT, it's your own fault they're freeloading.
I thought this, too, but the AGPL isn't bulletproof. Notably, Amazon has a hosted Grafana service, which is under the AGPL, yet they can still compete Grafana.
The idea that a FOSS company can sell services around its code runs into the problem that Amazon can sell many of those same services better, while not bearing the development costs.
The idea that a FOSS company can sell services around its code runs into the problem that Amazon can sell many of those same services better, while not bearing the development costs.
By this logic compiling free software on Windows is an "unacceptable cost" even though it allows people to become accustomed with free software programs and make the transition to a FOSS OS much easier
Yes. To _depend_ on Windows would be a mistake in terms of freedom.
It is: because people who find, also thanks to FLOSS, a comfortable home on Windows will remain there instead of switching to a fully Free ecosystem.
I gave up on the Year of Linux Desktop when Windows 7 came to be, and added VMWare Workstation into the mix, now replaced by WSL.
No stranger to UNIX, using it across multiple vendors since Xenix was a Microsoft product, Linux Journal subscriber until its last published days, and still have UNIX/POSIX systems as part of day job.
My favourite UNIX flavours were Solaris, Irix, NeXTSTEP/macOS, and if it is FLOSS, Public Domain, Open Core, Shareware, or WhateverWare I don't really care that much.
No stranger to UNIX, using it across multiple vendors since Xenix was a Microsoft product, Linux Journal subscriber until its last published days, and still have UNIX/POSIX systems as part of day job.
My favourite UNIX flavours were Solaris, Irix, NeXTSTEP/macOS, and if it is FLOSS, Public Domain, Open Core, Shareware, or WhateverWare I don't really care that much.
Nobody "uses" the operating system. People interact with an UI that lets them run the programs they need. We can already switch most people to Linux (ChromeOS) because they mostly use a browser. In the same way, if most people already used FOSS tools they could seamlessly move to Linux
You're overlooking the matter of hardware support/requirements.
I prefer to use tablets with a stylus, but specifically want a high-resolution display and Wacom EMR, and a file system and the ability to run arbitrary applications.
Writing this out on a Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Pro 360 in Windows 11 because it's the only reasonably priced option (I despair of replacing my Fujitsu Stylistic ST-4110 since another need is for a daylight-viewable display, or my Book 12 which was small enough to fit in my day bag along w/ my Kindle Scribe).
I am currently considering a Raspberry Pi 5 w/ a Wacom One 13 (2nd gen) or Wacom Movink 13, but this means that giving up high resolution (only 1920 × 1080) and battery and decent handwriting recognition... which is scarcely "seamless".
Hoping that the Lenovo Yogabook 9i is popular enough that it will inaugurate a product category which will prompt Samsung to make a competitor w/ Wacom EMR which will be popular enough that folks will work out how to install Linux... (and I'd be interested in running Linux on my Book 3 Pro 360 as I used to run Lubuntu on NTFS on a Thinkpad convertible).
I prefer to use tablets with a stylus, but specifically want a high-resolution display and Wacom EMR, and a file system and the ability to run arbitrary applications.
Writing this out on a Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Pro 360 in Windows 11 because it's the only reasonably priced option (I despair of replacing my Fujitsu Stylistic ST-4110 since another need is for a daylight-viewable display, or my Book 12 which was small enough to fit in my day bag along w/ my Kindle Scribe).
I am currently considering a Raspberry Pi 5 w/ a Wacom One 13 (2nd gen) or Wacom Movink 13, but this means that giving up high resolution (only 1920 × 1080) and battery and decent handwriting recognition... which is scarcely "seamless".
Hoping that the Lenovo Yogabook 9i is popular enough that it will inaugurate a product category which will prompt Samsung to make a competitor w/ Wacom EMR which will be popular enough that folks will work out how to install Linux... (and I'd be interested in running Linux on my Book 3 Pro 360 as I used to run Lubuntu on NTFS on a Thinkpad convertible).