How do we Make Software Free Again?

File: 1334871443002.jpg (60KB, 800x604px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x604px

>>55726598
We build a wall and make the jews pay for it.

>>55726598
1. Petition big software companies to port their software to Linux.
2. Linux becomes popular because it's free and it doesn't keep people from using their software
3. More people develop free software.

>>55727283
>1. Petition big software companies to port their software to Linux.
That doesn't necessarily make the company release their source under the GPL.
GNU/Linux would get a few more people then but those would also write prorprietary software for it because they still don't know about free software.

>>55726598
You don't, because it never really was, even in the '60s and '70s where RMS still thinks we live.

>>55727283
>Petition big software companies to port their software to Linux.
Do you really think big software companies are ignorant that there is a reasonable amount of desktop GNU/Linux users who would like to see more commercial desktop software on the platform? It's because it isn't really worth the effort. The only thing that would spur them to undertake the massively fucked-up effort of porting software over to another platform like this is large-scale enterprise demand.

>>55728536
His idea is more that giving GNU/Linux a more impressive commercial software base will bring more users to the platform, thus the potential for more good GPL desktop software.

>Why don't people work for free

Software developers have bills like the rest of us, that's why a lot of software isn't free.

File: Capture.png (877KB, 1173x748px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 1173x748px

>>55726598
>>55726715
top bread

>>55728911
It's simple. You can sell your software and charge support for quite some money.
It's like you have never heard of Red Hat's business model.

>>55728536
>That doesn't necessarily make the company release their source under the GPL.
I'm aware of that, stupid.
>GNU/Linux would get a few more people then but those would also write prorprietary software for it because they still don't know about free software.
So there would be more people writing free software anyway.

The ultimate benefit is using a free OS. It's fine if software that does extremely complex or elaborate shit has to use paid for license. If it's the only way they will exist, then it's better that they do exist than they don't. But we should work towards not having to dish out $250 for a spyware-bloated OS to use software first. The "whether software for the OS is free" question should come second.

This is why the free software movement is not progressing: People like you who want all or nothing. You're going to keep getting nothing for the rest of your life.

>>55728981
That's great if your software targets large businesses that pay for lucrative support contracts, but not as much if you're developing a niche product that won't be very compatible with this model.

>>55728981
In reality nobody can reply the redhat model easily.

only use artisanally-crafted small-batch free-trade software

>>55728911
Not sure what you're talking about. It's free as in freedom, not free as in price.

Does free software grant me the freedom to distribute my contributions to it under any license I choose?

>>55729323
Proprietary software already has a huge piracy problem, and you think allowing any shitter to build the full software from source in fifteen minutes or just download one of the many forks there will inevitably be is going to pay them a livable wage?

>>55729273
This hypothetical "niche product" will do even more poorly as proprietary software.

>>55729349
Yes as long as the license doesn't remove freedoms.

>>55729364
>This hypothetical "niche product" will do even more poorly as proprietary software.
And why? People buy weirdo third-party shit all the time. There's more to computing than enterprise(TM) bullshit.

>>55729360
I don't know what you're saying. None of that has anything to do with the programmer getting paid. If he/she wants to get paid, perhaps he/she should have made a more valuable product.

>Piracy problem
Do not use the word "piracy," what I think you mean is "copyright infringement" and for those users who do it it's not a "problem." It's actually a solution to bullshit proprietary licenses that try to restrict their freedoms.

>>55729376
Choice 1: Weird niche shit
Choice 2: Weird niche shit that attacks my freedom

Gee I wonder which one of these is more appealing?

>>55729397
>None of that has anything to do with the programmer getting paid.
If nobody buys the software, nobody gets paid.

>If he/she wants to get paid, perhaps he/she should have made a more valuable product.
What kind of lame cop-out is this? What does it even have to do with anything I said? People don't pay money to developers out of the good of their hearts. Why the fuck would I spend money on a "valuable product" when I could just go use a free fork that does the same thing?

>Do not use the word "piracy,"
Fuck off with your canned FSF talking points.

>>55729417
The majority of computer users don't give a fuck about what license their software is distributed under as long as it works.

>>55726598
Software is more liberated than ever. They're wasn't even a free operating system in the 80s

>>55729436
And you think that is acceptable why? You do realize that kind of thinking is what got us into the PRISM and Xkeyscore mess to begin with right?

>>55727283
>petition big companies to port their programs

ALL THOSE LESS THAN 2% MARJETSHARE PETITIONONG HUH I BET COMPANIES WOULD SHIT THEMSELF


There is a reason why people dont use linix despite being free, simply because in 95% of the cases Windows is simply better

If it would be the other way around more people would install linux o their system

>>55727283
>big software companies porting their software to Linux
Never going to happen.
You need to do it the other way around and make a Linux distro that natively supports Windows applications & drivers without any additional hassle.
People won't just switch to free everything overnight, you need to make a gradual transition, starting with a free OS that supports current non-free software.

>>55729467
When did I ever state my opinion on this matter? I'm stating reality.

>>55729468
No, in 95% of the cases Windows just does its job the way it's expected to. Nobody ever chose the platform because it was the best under the hood, they chose it because it was the most compatible, and by extension the most useful for the widest range of use cases.

>>55729486
>Never going to happen.
There's already a reasonable commercial software base on GNU/Linux, although most of it is grandfathered in from the SysVs that it murdered.

>>55729509
Nice one, you said what i did with other words

>>55729422
>If nobody buys the software, nobody gets paid.
No, this is incorrect. If nobody gives you money then nobody gets paid. If you're going into business, you should probably figure out how you are going to convince people to give you money and not just assume they are going to because you wrote a few hundred lines of code.

>Why the fuck would I spend money on a "valuable product" when I could just go use a free fork that does the same thing?
I don't know what your deal is. You seem to acknowledge here that proprietary software isn't worth paying for, but yet you are defending it at the same time? I don't understand.

>Fuck off with your canned FSF talking points.
No, you fuck off with your nonsensical proprietary shilling.

>>55729509
>I'm stating reality.
But that isn't reality, it's FUD. That kind of "hurr durr no one cares about freedom" shit is exactly what proprietary software developers want you to believe because it leads to more profits for them.

>>55729528
>and not just assume they are going to because you wrote a few hundred lines of code.
Effort is effort, and in the real world it usually comes with some form of compensation. It's quite obvious by the fact that someone is considering acquiring my software that I offered a service to them that they were incapable of doing themselves or deemed it unreasonable to do so. That sounds pretty "valuable" to me.

>You seem to acknowledge here that proprietary software isn't worth paying for
That wasn't my implication, my implication was that users take the path of least resistance and least pain. There is little of that in getting the same nice product for free with no strings attached, and it doesn't at all imply that I wouldn't pay for it if this option wasn't available.

>fuck off with your nonsensical proprietary shilling
People who disagree with your opinions do not have to be paid to do so.

>>55729546
Considering how entrenched large proprietary software vendors are in the computing landscape, how relatively irrelevant free alternatives are to popular proprietary products, and the fact that we're even discussing this at the moment, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the greater userbase really could give a fuck about some aging academic's unrealistic software-leftism movement.

>>55729669
I should clarify before it is pointed out, I am talking about desktop software on the second point, it's a much different case in servers and other computing infrastructure.

In capitalism or in communism something made by a hobbist will be worse than a one made bye a company, or state of course there are a few exceptions