Can /g/ come up with a business plan for a FOSS program that

Can you come up with a business plan for proprietary software that doesn't involve charging for copies, ads, or selling support?

Why does it have to be a bussiness, rather than independent developers hired by other companies to work on said project because they use that open source software?

100% GPL'd original software embedded on the devices we ship. People can modify or even outright replace the software on them, or they can improve the software and upsell them (but if they do, we can incorporate their improvements into our own machines to stay competitive)

>>58439161
>Can /g/ come up with a business plan for a FOSS program that doesn't involve begging donations or selling support?
You get paid for customization and integration.
Like a municipality paying you to port legacy Windows applications to GNU/Linux.

Sell for a high price high performance business-class software to people who have no business interest in throwing it up on a github for their competitors to take for free.

This thread died quick. Sorry for answering seriously instead of playing into what I assume was the expected shitflinging contest, OP.

Fan clubs..... assuming that any software has a fan club other than games

Commercial use licensing.

>Open source program
>But if you use it for profit without giving us a cut, our lawyers are going to rape your butt

>>58439244
Nobody is going to pay for free software to be made because that's shouldering the load for everyone else. When you hire someone you're looking for a product tailored specifically to your needs, not a general use product. After creating a specifically tailored product, the main external interest in it is going to come from your competitors. Nobody's going to pay millions to give their competitors a free leg up.

>>58440898
A limit on commercial use excludes it from being FLOSS.

>>58439324
>You get paid for customization and integration.
>Like a municipality paying you to port legacy Windows applications to GNU/Linux.
They can't afford it.

When making commercial software you can afford to pay a highly skilled team since you'll have income coming from multiple buyers so you can spread the costs out. The amount any one buyer can afford is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much smaller.

The software on my computer cost literally billions of dollars to make. If I had had to pay billions for someone to make it for me, we'd have this little issue that my income is insufficient to even begin.
I can't afford to hire even one personal butler to make software for me. But with 7 billion people helping me to get a piece, we can hire a couple million.
It doesn't work if you put the entire load on one person and then give it away to everyone else for free. That's called being cucked, and people tend to avoid that.

>>58441208
See >>58439354
They have the right to upload it to some noncommercial server for everyone to download, but not the obligation.

>>58441616
Your assumption there is that the software is made from scratch every time. The post you replied to specifically mentioned porting old, already-written software to work with your machines. This is much, much, much etc. cheaper than building from scratch.

>>58441647
Which is trading free as in "They feel free to engage in a commercial relationship as copyright exists, and I am thus free to buy it," with ultra-proprietary.
Why do freetards hate freedom?

>>58441696
>no new software will ever be made, we'll only be patching old stuff!
Wow, sounds great,

>>58441731
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, so sorry if I'm way off.
Company A wants software B from developer C. They buy it. If B is free software, they have the right to just give it away to everyone for free, including competitor D. They don't. What changes if B is nonfree?
>>58441749
If you need something that requires creating a whole new program instead of patching one, then pay for it to be made. Whether that means paying an outside developer or an in-house team doesn't matter. If you can't afford it and won't make enough money using it to pay for the entire development of it, that's too bad.
On the other hand, if it were something useful, then developers would be making it and offering it for sale. The idea that people will just stop making software if it were free as in freedom is ridiculous.

>>58441892
>What changes if B is nonfree?
Developer C makes the software. He makes it his baby, and puts long hours into it so it will not only satisfy companies A and D, but companies E, F, G, H, I J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z. Which he then sells it to. A business model is now born, and he hires a team to make more software.

>>58442050
So what changes if B is free? Since A isn't sharing it, D has to buy from C. D won't share it either, so E has to buy from F. This continues until they all have bought it from C. What changed?
Here's what changed: if C isn't such a good and honest developer, then A doesn't have to rely on C when (not if) a bug is found that compromises his business. He can have his own staff work on fixing it, he can hire an outside contractor to come fix it, or (and this is a big one) he can still pay C to fix it. Since C is an honest, hard-working software developer, he'll be chosen to fix it.
Were it nonfree, C would be the one to fix it, no matter how good and honest, or bad and shady, he is.

>>58441892
>On the other hand, if it were something useful, then developers would be making it and offering it for sale.
If it is free as soon as the first person pays, you cannot afford to put any more money into it than you can extract from that one person. Without copyright there are no 50 million dollar games or 500 million dollar blockbuster movies. You have Pong and 8th grade piano recitals.

>>58442193
More likely C would leave it in and deny its existence due to being exploited by state actors in order to compromise the freedom of all users.

>>58442258
>If it's free as soon as the first person pays
See >>58439354, >>58441647, and the rest of the post you are responding to.

>>58442193
>So what changes if B is free?
A doesn't pay for it to be developed in the first place. The human race has gotten along just fine for millions of years without it. Their competitors don't have it. Why would they take the hit and the chance of being cucked?

>>58441208
>Nobody is going to pay for free software to be made
Yes most of Linux development is done by paid developers.

>>58442365
Not paid on the sale of free software.

>>58442385
The vast majority of software developers get regular salaries.

>>58442417
Because proprietary software makes money.

Kickstarter

>>58442344
>A doesn't pay for it to be developed in the first place
C already made it. C is offering it because C knows that it will offer a competitive advantage to A, so C is justified in its high price.
A is buying it from C because 1. it gives A an advantage over the rest of his competitors, and 2. he can only get it from C or a customer of C. Since none of his customers are about to give up their advantage for less than or equal to what they paid for it, C is the only option.
>>58442258
>Without copyright there are no
Music and art has existed since before laws did. That people won't make muh Call of Duty or World of Warcraft isn't as bad an impact to the rest of the world.
>>58442385
Yo wtf where did the goalposts go? This entire thread is about ways to make money without relying on donations or support.

>>58442432
Most Linux developers get regular salaries.

>>58442385
>freetards, free software can't be monetized!
>here are people that are earning money, partly for developing free software
>b-but they're not earning money in this specific way, so it doesn't count!!!
fuck off

>>58442462
>C already made it.
No, C didn't, because he knows he could never recoup his costs. Neither A nor D need his software. They've been operating for the last 100 years just fine without it. If he were dumb enough to make it, the smart thing to do is to not buy and just wait. It's not worth anything if there are no buyers, so they can just wait until he's willing to sell it at a loss or it gets out and they have it for free. Both A and D know that they each only need it if the other has it, so neither buys.

You can't hold software hostage for the totality of the development costs. There just won't be buyers.

>>58441208
>companies use and need free software for their business, so they'll pay to maintain and develop it
>WTF WHY WOULD A COMPANY DO THAT WHEN IT COULD ALSO BENEFIT EVERYONE INSTEAD OF ONLY THE ONE PAYING FOR IT
Because they rely too heavily on that piece of free software not to and are legally forbidden from not doing so under the GPL
This sort of thing actually does happen, IRL, btw.
Thank you mr stallman

>>58442799
>for the totality of the development costs
What the fuck are you talking about? C isn't charging 100% of the costs to any one single customer. He recoups his costs because he knows that he will still be the go-to source for his software B.

>>58442468
From sources dependent on copyright and patents for their income.

What you're refering to as FOSS, is in fact, Proprietary/FOSS, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Proprietary plus FOSS. FOSS is not a viable economic system unto itself, but rather a small component of the fully functioning Proprietary system made useful by the amortization of costs allowed by copyright/.
Many computer users run a modified version of the Proprietary system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, a version of Proprietary which isn't widely used today is often called FOSS, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Proprietary system.
There really is a FOSS, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. FOSS is an adjunct: a small set of utils that just happen to have been developed by the Proprietary system and given away for free.

FOSS isn't an essential part of an economic system, and is useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete economic system. FOSS is normally used in combination with the Proprietary system: the whole system is basically Proprietary with FOSS added, or Proprietary/FOSS. All the so-called FOSS distributions are really distributions of Proprietary/FOSS!

>>58443077
>dependent on copyright and patents
Or selling support, installation, hosting, etc. in the case of Red Hat and others, but since OP conveniently threw out one of those, we get to pretend they don't exist.

>>58443077
*

What you're refering to as FOSS, is in fact, Proprietary/FOSS, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Proprietary plus FOSS. FOSS is not a viable economic system unto itself, but rather a small component of the fully functioning Proprietary system made useful by copyright enabling the spread of fixed costs.
A small number of computer users run a modified version of the Proprietary system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, a version of Proprietary which isn't widely used today is often called FOSS, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Proprietary system.
There really is a FOSS, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. FOSS is an adjunct: a small set of utils that just happen to have been developed by the Proprietary system and given away for free.

FOSS isn't an essential part of an economic system, and is useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a working economic system. FOSS is always used in combination with the Proprietary system: the whole system is basically Proprietary with FOSS added, or Proprietary/FOSS. All the so-called FOSS distributions are really distributions of Proprietary/FOSS!

>>58443167
Doesn't exist without proprietary. You can't sell support of an OS that runs nothing.

>>58443302
now you're just making shit up

>>58439161
Sell a hosted recurring revenue service that helps large enterprises develop with the FOSS software. Plus, give it to small business and individuals for free.

See: Xamarin.

Xamarin used to be $1,000/dev/year, and closed-source.

Microsoft bought Xamarin last year, and made it free and open-source.

They make money by hosting a massive farm of various mobile OS virtual machines that companies can use to debug their application on 100's of devices at once to ensure compatibility.

It's great; everybody wins.

>>58443341
Name a company paying Red Hat for support that exists outside an economic system with intellectual property laws.

>>58443379
low quality.

>>58443379
>OP
>Can /g/ come up with a business plan for a FOSS program that doesn't involve begging donations or selling support?
>this post
>Okay fine, you gave me everything I asked for, and then some more while I constantly moved the goalposts, BUT NOW GIVE ME SOMETHING THAT EXISTS IN A COMPLETELY SEPARATE REALITY
I don't think I've ever seen someone lose an internet argument this graciously in years.

>>58443446
His last post insinuated theres no such thing as non-proprietary software other than free operating systems. He's a bad troll. stop replying.

>>58443491
I'm not trying to convince him anything, just providing commentary for the lurkers in this ITT thread.

>>58443446
>that doesn't involve selling support
>"You can sell support!"

>>58443663
How about what's said in:
>>58439306
>>58439324
>>58439354
>>58441647
>>58441696
>>58441892
>>58442193
>>58442365
>>58442417
>>58442462
>>58442468
>>58442493
>>58442863
>>58443076
>>58443342
all of which don't even mention support? Also note the lack of reply to >>58439220, suggesting a naïve view of how business works.

There literally isn't. "Free software" literally make their profits through blackmailing users.

>>58443833
>a business plan for selling that doesn't involve selling

>>58444123
Ohh, so a business plan for selling a FOSS program, why didn't you just say so in the OP? That narrows it down to:
>>58439306
>>58439354
>>58441647
>>58441892
>>58442193
>>58442462
>>58442493
>>58443076
You're moving the goalposts around, but they're still within what we've covered. What is your end goal here?

>>58444213
>no buyers is "selling"

>>58444347
What is your end goal here?

>>58444377
What's yours trying to convince anyone that you can sell with no buyers? A rather interesting choice of effort. Makes one wonder what's behind it.

>>58444398
>you can sell with no buyers
If we're still using the variables from before, we'll give two different examples:
C creates program B with a budget of $100,000. He sells it at a price of $1,000 because market forces dictate that to be the highest price he can make it. In order to break even, he has to sell 100 copies assuming that his income comes 100% from sales.
A needs C's software, so he buys it from C.
D also needs it. It is only available from C, so he buys it from C.
E also needs it. It is only available from C, so he buys it from C.
And so on, until C has sold 100+ copies of the software. What part of this is confusing you?
Also
>answering a question with the same question

>>58444535
>E also needs it. It is only available from C.
Not if D released it.
Arguing rather hard for a proprietary framework.

>>58439161
Free for organizations
Purchase for individual use

>>58444637
>Not if D released it.
Why in the would would he do that?

>>58444663
Maybe he doesn't believe in evil proprietary software?

>>58444674
Yes, let's say that he doesn't. He is a firm believer in the freedom of people to share the software that they possess. He also is a company with the intent of making money. He just spent $1,000 on a program that many of his competitors want. If he gives it away, they will be able to use it and compete with him for free.
Why in the world would he do that?

>>58444800
You realize without a strong central government to break up large corporations to ensure competition (which is against free as in freedom) that markets trend towards monopolies/duopolies?
His main competitor spent $1000 on it and tried to keep proprietary. He's spending $1000 on it with the opportunity to reap the PR rewards of releasing it.

>>58444856
>competition (which is against free as in freedom)
See >>58442193
Freedom supports comptetion MORE than proprietary software.
>His main competitor spent $1000 on it and
had absolutely no obligation to share it with anyone else, so he didn't. This is 100% okay and in tune with the free software movement.
>He's spending $1000 on it with the opportunity to
use it himself and profit off his investment. If he really was your strawNEET with a grudge against money and capitalism in general, he wouldn't have $1000 to spend on this, let alone would he.
You still haven't answered >>58444377, but that's fine if you're just looking to stir shit up (which looks very likely).
I'm just replying so that people stumbling into this thread see how ludicrous the idea that freedom and money are incompatible.

>>58444945
>Freedom supports comptetion
No it doesn't. Remove all laws and monopolies will invariably form.

>>58445085
>let me reply to just this one point and ignore the rest
A good strategy when you have no argument, but anarchy and freedom are two distinct concepts. If you want to argue that anarchy is bad for business, then do that.
Can't wait for your reply to follow this tangient so that you don't have to come up with actual counterpoints.
In fact, why don't I just say the magic words "you win the argument" so you can go to bed?

>>58445214
>anarchy and freedom are two distinct concepts
No they're not. If you are restricted in any way you are not free.

>>58445362
Then why didn't you bring that up when the GPL was mentioned?

>>58445402
Why didn't you say you're against freedom?

>>58445413
You win the argument.

>>58445463
I used my freedom to win from the start.

>>58445362
My experience of reality is constrained by the limitations of my body and mind.

>tfw nothing is free

>>58445214
You misspelled tangent.

>>58445488
>tfw free cannot be not free. Thus bound by logic it can never be free. Though this contradicts what I just said. If free is not free, is it free, or not free?

>>58445512
I kinda like that only the abstract concept "null" can possibly be free

>>58445644
Is it free to be not null?