>yes, yes good goy! give us your software you worked so hard

>>58782037
pajeet my son

Indian government sent a letter.
They want you back.

>>58782037
Why should I trust your abysmal program you've "worked so hard on" when you won't even show me what it does? If I buy a book, it belongs to the author and publisher as intellectual and copyright property, but nonetheless I'm allowed to read it to my discretion. Why would anyone pay money for a book they cannot read?

File: 1426103364003.jpg (78KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1000x1000px

Communism.

>>58782037
you can sell software under the gpl you faggot

>>58782037
>why is it even a thing?

For companies that don't sell software, FOSS is a better long-term model.

For example, if you go into the server rooms at Google/Facebook/Amazon/etc, you'll see all the servers running exclusively FOSS. That's because they realized that the expense of growing in-house Linux expertise was (in the long term) less than having to pay the Microsoft tax every year.

When you say "people fall for the free software meme again", you're talking about Google and Facebook and Amazon. My instinct is to trust their business judgment more than I trust you, because they're pulling in billions of dollars of annual revenue, and you're not.

Once you're competing at their level, then come here and post again about free software, and maybe I'll have a reason to respect your opinion.

>>58782126
>buy a car
>hurr hurr why wont they include all the blueprints and plans so i can view them through

File: 1474688568594.png (1MB, 1000x1400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1400px

>>58782037
Free software means software that respects the user's freedom.

There are four essential freedoms that the user of software should always have:

Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program however you wish.
Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program and change it to make the program do as you wish.
Freedom 2 is the freedom to distribute copies of the program to others when you wish. This includes republication of the program.
Freedom 3 is the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others when you wish. This includes republication.

If you have all four of these essential freedoms, then the program is free software, which means that the social system of the distribution of the program is an ethical system that respects the freedom and community of the users.

If one of these freedoms is missing, then the program is proprietary software, meaning that it keeps the users divided and helpless, and gives the developer power over the users. This is an injustice. Proprietary software should not exist and should not be used.

If you want to have freedom, the only way you can have it while using computers is by rejecting proprietary software.

If you associate FOSS with communism you don't understand FOSS and you don't understand communism.

File: 1485307980034.jpg (41KB, 763x757px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 763x757px

FREE AS IN LIBRE NOT GRATIS

>>58782327
>implying you can't disassemble the car yourself and see how it works
wew

>>58782037

> give us your software you worked so hard on for free!
That's part of the deal for you apparently using parts of software OTHER people worked so hard on.

> software should be free for everyone!
Ideally so.

But it certainly, this is the deal for you using other people's open source software.

Actually it's even more limited than that, you are only required to share your work if you use *THAT* software in what you strangely call "your" own software, but which is actually someone else's software combined with yours. Only in this specific instance.
The deal could be much worse, like a demand for an equal value of software in return.

And on the GPL license, even that limited demand only is asked for once this combination is handed in some form to another entity. While you only use the combination yourself, you don't have to share anything.

File: 1475625962340.png (172KB, 872x685px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 872x685px

>>58782463
If you associate BSD with cucks you don't understand BSD and you don't understand cuckoldry.

>>58782126

>I can't study the source code of a program I use for something
>software is like a book, if I can't study the source code, IT MEANS I CAN'T READ BOOK! OMG
> HURR Why would anyone pay money for a book they cannot read?

Freetards have to go off on mad logical tangents nowhere near where they started in order to try to make a point.

>>58782347
>proprietary software is unethical
>because it robs you of your freedom

Hmmm... that sounds familiar...

>property is theft

>>58782463
FOSS is by definition communism. Believing that property is theft can be nothing but communism.

>>58782682
>FOSS is by definition communism.

Nobody forces you to release your source code, you wanker.

>>58782702
He just said not doing it is unethical. That means he WANTS to force me to release my source code, because that which is not ethical cannot be allowed.

>>58782754
wrong

>>58782327
That's required by law though. Still have to purchase them

>>58783263
Nice argument.

>>58782682
It's not like communism at all. The idea is that if everyone has access to the code everyone benefits. The consumers have freedom and power and companies get a better product and community.

>>58782682
>FOSS is by definition communism.

Funny story:

Once there were these 10 ruthlessly-capitalistic companies who realized that they could all mutual benefit if they formed a consortium to co-develop some software they all needed to solve a problem that they all had.

When they were finished developing the software, they all deployed it internally, and they were all happy. A few people asked if it would make sense to figure out how to market and sell the software, but none of them were in the software business, and none of their existing customers were interested in that kind of software, and it would have taken them a lot of work to figure out how to market and sell it, and they didn't really see much market potential for it anyway -- so they just said "fuck it" and they made the software free for everyone else to use. They just considered it to be a zero-cost "good will" gesture that they could exploit for marketing purposes to show how much their companies are "giving back" to the community.

Then, a few years later, some complete fucking idiot posts a message on a website that claims that all 10 of those companies were engaged in "communism by definition" because they had once participated in a consortium to share in the development of software that didn't require any license fees to use.

Those 10 companies -- all of their hands dirty from practicing the most ruthless, aggressive, capitalistic behaviors known to mankind -- turned to look at this fucking idiot who was calling them "communists".

And they all had a nice, long laugh.

>>58782037
but free software is just a different business model

>>58782037
Hey dumbfuck, can you read?

https://fsf.org

>>58784661
>>58785257

Free software IS communism.

It's just that we've been pre-programmed by corporatist propaganda to think badly of communism.

But communism isn't a bad thing. It's great, and free software is out there to prove it.

>>58785467
stallman said it is ok to sell software as long as it is free as in freedom. so free software can exist within a capitalist or socialist environment, not communist only