Isn't GNU and all forms of the open source movement just another attempt at socialism. If the source must be released, then anyone can steal your work. Software as a service lowers us programmers to mere support monkeys and is orders of magnitude less profitable than selling the software itself. We already know that capitalism trumps socialism every-time. With no incentive to work, most people don't work more than the minimum.
The proof is in the pudding. The vast majority of open-source projects are clones of commercial projects. Open-source projects rarely do anything innovative. Open-source projects mostly have worse design and are more buggy than their commercial counterparts.
There are a handful of good open-source projects, lead by charitable souls. But for the most part, it's a lot of crappy clones. The areas where open-source projects make the most progress are programming languages and tools, ironically though, by sucking all the profit out of making programming languages and tools, open-source has killed much of the innovation in the area. Instead most work on programming tools is subsidized by big technology corps like Google, Microsoft and Apple that try to lock you into their platforms. Gone are the pure software tool makers like Borland.
It's time to admit that open-source and free software is detrimental to the ecosystem as whole in the long-run. The benefits of open-source are perfectly achievable without sacrificing profit and the incentive to create great software.
For example:
1. Provide free-licenses for non-commercial use.
2. Provide plugin functionality for software extensions
3. Sell re-usable open-source, but not free libraries, so that others can benefit from your work
It's time to face facts, free open-source software is a socialist utopian dream. We live in a capitalistic society and that dream hurts us more than helps us. By open-sourcing and destroying the market for software, you prevent the creation of innovative software. It's time to fight back.
I propose the creation of a new set of ethical software standards. These standards should be pragmatic, not based on a Utopian vision of a post-scarcity world.
Here's roughly what i'm thinking(critique welcome). This applies mostly to software that would otherwise ideally be open-source. Not for games, and things of that nature for which a open-source has little benefit.
1. Software should be free for non-commercial use. For commercial use it should cost money. Stop giving software away for free, businesses that benefit from your software always be paying for it or contributing back to the project in some way.
2. Developers that contribute to open-source software, should be financially rewarded for their contribution.
3. Consider allowing commercial entities to fork an open source project, and charge them for the privilege.
4. Punish unethical companies, do not allow them to use your software
Give up this utopian dream of free software for all. Use the leverage available by commercializing software to help the greater good. Use the money to continue developing ethical software. Make the world a better place.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-19 4:50
I was going to tell you to fuck off and die but then I saw you weren't suggesting closed-source as an alternative, but rather just charging money for commercial/governmental use. I'm okay with this.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-19 5:24
10/10. You've got some QUALITY arguments here. Would read again.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-19 5:31
C++ is a good language. It is not a perfect language because it inherits from C. C is a flawed language where many things are left undefined. C is an ancient artifact that serves no purpose outside of the domain of kernel design. Because of the improvements made upon C to form C++, beginning programmers and veteran programmers alike may be led astray, thinking that modern C usage is a good idea. It is a mistake to believe the success of C++ justifies the continued use and popularity of C. Just because C++ is successful does not mean the language it has inherited from is of high quality.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-19 6:09
>>1
So you're saying that the solution is to publish open-source software under a license that says something like ,,you may copy, redistribute, modify and wipe your ass with this software as long as it's for non-commercial use, otherwise you need to pay me a shitload of money'', right?
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-19 6:15
We already know that capitalism trumps socialism every-time. implying
ISHIGGYDIGGY
Name:
52012-06-19 6:16
Oh yeah, and the license needs to also say ,,if you modify and redistribute this software, you need to give the same rights to all of your non-commercial users''. So it's a bit like the GPL except you can charge corporations for it.
It's going to get complicated if you have a large project with, say, twenty different contributors. Every one of them will have a different policy on how much they want and how to receive payments/etc, so selling the product might get complicated if the buyer needs to make twenty different payments. But I suppose once this need arises some ``open-source software selling'' company will be created so they can take care of this scenario.
well, capitalism is a dream
too, based on the following myths
* Self interest benefits all, and it is the best incentive
* Money is a fair way for interchange goods
* There is such thing as 'intelectual property'
* The resources of the planet are there only for human consumption
Surely i can think of others but the idea is clear
The solution is one. Cybernetics. In theory more than practice.
I agree. FOSS is pretty retarded. The benefits they point out about how the source code makes them "free" can also be achieved with proprietary software through plugins. I don't need the source code for Foobar2000 or Winamp in order to customize every piece of it, because the developers made these parts exposed to the user. In the end it comes down to FOSS retards resenting the American software industry because they personally never made it.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 17:50
>>13 The benefits they point out about how the source code makes them "free" can also be achieved with proprietary software through plugins.
Closed-source is not okay, because it invades my fucking privacy and poses a threat to my security.
>>13
Customisation is not the only point of FOSS and plugins are not enough for some purposes.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 18:14
>>14
How does it pose a threat to your security? Afraid it's sending packets back? Just analyze it with something like Wireshark. Nobody gets away with that crap.
>>14
Care to explain precisely how, with examples?
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 19:00
If you look at the business model of software companies they only make money from a small sector of society due to pirating, mostly from businesses(because they cant hide pirated software, and the wealthy(who cant be assed to waste their time downloading software). Open source software really doesnt cut into either of those demographics. Although corporate/enterprise does use open source, they usually do it because they have to depend on their toolchain being open as they cannot afford having proprietary software break compatibility.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 19:03
>>20
Depends on the software company. Apple users tend to be more likely to pay for software, for example. Microsoft has the advantages of deals with OEMs to have much of its software preinstalled. But yes - unless one gets lucky, there's more money in freelancing than writing and selling software packages.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 19:07
>>21
The Apple business model proves my point, Apple only has about 5% marketshare, but they make more profit than MS who has 90% marketshare. Obviously Apple figured out that tapping into the right demographic and creating a software ecosystem around that tiny demographic is smarter than losing to pirating from the unwashed masses
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 20:31
>>19
Itunes with DRM functions will track if the user is authorized to have a video. Windows will disable if it finds the system is not licensed. Video games such as Diablo 3 and Skyrim have obnoxious tracking features that are designed to control the users.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 20:32
MY DOG HAS NO DRM.
HOW DOES HE ENFORCE COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON HIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?
TERRIBLE!
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 20:58
Open Source isn't leftist socialism. Socialism and Marxism attempt to enslave the bulk of the populace as laborers for the singular Party elites, while preaching about how everyone will be equal (except the Party elites). I don't see any enslaving and lock-in happening in the Open Source community.
Open Source is more like tribalism mixed with Buddhist philosophy. Everything in the Universe that is possible already exists in a timeless sense in Plato's Transcendant Plane of Forms, and writing the software and sharing it openly is merely actuating an already existing potential. The wealth of the Universe belongs only to God.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 22:53
>>18
It's because he's such a fucking retard that I couldn't help myself.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-20 22:55
>>25 The wealth of the Universe belongs only to God.
this is the kind of bullshit that makes me hate religious people. credit where due, fucktards.
I am a linux kernel faggot and I find myself agreeing with OP. Been having similar thoughts lately.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-21 8:13
I like it, we just need to design it to have no loop holes.
One issue with payment to the developers:
If all developers receive a flat fee from the client corporations, the project could become incredibly expensive as the number of contributors grows large. This would discourage use of projects with a long history of open source development, and would favor young projects made by a small set of developers.
If the cost of using the product is held constant, and if the contributions to the authors are divided evenly, a corporation could have a bunch of people extend the project by adding something small and trivial, and then have those people dilute your payment. Then this group of phony contributors could pass the money back to the corporation under the table.
I think it could work, and it would provide a way for people to make a living in a very adhoc environment, which is interesting. But when I work on open source work, I work on it for the enjoyment value alone, and as a consequence, there typically isn't a hole in the market for it to fill, and it's easier for me to not worry about whether or not it will turn to profit. Of course, it would be nice to be financially compensated for working on something that I actually want to work on, but it's not the end of the world if I just have to both.
>>36
This thread isn't about what RMS says. RMS is about encouraging people to value their freedom. This thread is all about the evils of open source and it even manages to get its arguments wrong. This means the premise of the thread is either intentionally lying (a troll) or just plain ignorant.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-22 0:33
>>38
Ah our new C++/Windows codemonkey is back. Would you go away if I gave you a cyanide-laced banana?
>>39
I'm actually a user-software-freedom activist and only use Windows for the purpose of writing a free replacement to proprietary Windows software. >>1 mischaracterizes open source to RMS. That'd be his first troll.