Proprietary software as result of psychological problems
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
My fresh view:
Case number #1. My code is awful! If I will make it as FLOSS then I will be ridiculed for sure! For example: "Hey dude, I have only one question. How this CRAP can work AT ALL?! It is THE WORST code I have ever seen! Bastard, your code will haunt me in my NIGHTMARES!!!"
Case number #2. My pretty! I'm the only one, who KNOW how develop this program in right way! And I'm the only one, who can DO it in right way!
This list is incomplete. You can add in more cases.
Case #3: I want to sell software and make a decent living so I can pay my bills, feed my family, and have a roof over my head.
I believe there are ways to develop free software for money. If you're a freelance developer, you can create your own website on where you should offer information about yourself, e.g. what skills, experiences you have, and where one can hire your services (this approach is popular these days). You can also develop applications, and offer them free (in both senses), then ask for money for further development, and enhancements (e.g. make a list of most requested features, and the pricing in a similar fashion like at https://trisquel.info/tasks).
If you have the ability, you can also offer support for companies on specialized free software application (this includes both software customization, and technical help). Maybe you can also get a job at FSF, where there is a widespread selection of software projects on what you can work on (depending on your preferences). All of this depends on what kind of software you're developing (if I remember correctly, they were mobile applications), if you're developing from scratch, or porting desktop programs to mobile operating systems, forking/enhancing existing projects, etc., and of course, on reallife situation/limitations.
Also, you can release the code on GitHub, or some other revision control system (e.g. GNU Savannah - a software development management system), and dual-license your application under both free/non-free licenses, while the proprietary counterpart will be available pre-compiled on the app store, therefore the average people will still buy your program, since they obviously doesn't want to struggle with building stuff. And so on...
If you're a proprietary software developer, I encourage you to add a time-based promise to your license, that will ensure that after a period of time, all the code will be released as free software. This way, even if you're struggling because you cannot make living out of development of FLOSS, it will both encourage users to buy your program in some way, but most importantly, this ensures that after the program served its purpose, it will eventually became free. I wish most of the proprietary software developers will follow the same route.
Regards,
Peter
Amazingly some people would still object to that. Maybe we should also have a thread of "free software mental problems" lol.
Anyway, yes, it's possible to make a living out of free licenses... but it's a lot HARDER and a lot more UNCERTAIN. That's why a lot of people don't use free licenses, because they might lose more that way.
That being said, I like to see business models where CC and GPL licenses are used to both free the user and pay for the creators living. But I don't think we should try to "peer-pressure-impose" those.
I for example, am not against the right kind of advertising for example. Namely, a company that sells product X gives a banner to the website owner, and it becames a part of the website, as a regular image. No links or tracks, just an image, maybe with a link provided below (again, no tracks). This way the user is respected and adblockers can't prevent the ad from appearing. Also, no need for that, because the ad is harmless. Everyone wins.
But when some people around here go saying "you can sell free software, GPL license does not forbid that", I just want to beat the crap out of them. They are playing blind and making all debate become useless. I enjoyed reading the suggestion you made because it might inspire some people to use freer licenses for business.In line with RMS copyright suggestions.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. People should stop being so stupid and insensitive with people trying to make a decent honest living.
If we want creators (software or other stuff) to use freer licenses we should help creating a business model that meets everyone's needs.
You can justify almost anything with "I needz to feedz". You can justify theft that way, for example. It suggests a false dichotomy: that if they don't develop proprietary software, they'll starve. In reality, if they don't develop proprietary software, they can get a job doing something else.
You know, there is a difference between an honest job and theft. And even so, most of us would hardly condemn a man who steals food for his kids to eat. So, yeah, your argument was pretty much out of context.
Having said that, like I said there are people who like to be stupid and play blind to the facts of life. If a developer produces proprietary software to sell and also develops some free software that he releases for free, what are we going to say, that he is "half good half evil"??
We should stop attacking someone who is trying to make a living, and start giving them alternatives. And like... put ourselves in their shoes not just say "you could put your stuff on the net and hope for the best", no actually give them ideas that we know we would take money out of our pockets and give them to support. Merely saying "proprietary software is evil" is no use.
Quote from GNUser
> You know, there is a difference between an honest job and theft.
Yes, but you're missing the point. The point is that an unethical action doesn't cease to be unethical simply because you can make money doing it.
Quote from GNUser
> If a developer produces proprietary software to sell and also develops some
> free software that he releases for free, what are we going to say, that he is
> "half good half evil"??
No, we are going to say that they are doing some good things, but that they are also doing some bad things. We can condemn bad actions and condone good actions of the same person; there's no conflict here.
There are levels of "ethical" actions. There's a big difference between stealing or killing for money and developing non-free software.
Some software hippy extremists like RMS compare the 2 as if they are equally bad, however rational thinkers like GNUser and I realize that there is a difference between a petty "unethical action" and a completely unethical action.
That's a strawman. I never said that developing proprietary software is just as bad as theft or murder, and I'm not aware of anyone who does.
RMS has stated so in an interview
I think that deserves a [citation needed].
And what what time point?
56:04
"Are you actually putting the needs of having no non free software above the needs of feeding my kid?"
"Absolutely. I don't see much difference between what you're saying and what, uh, a thief or swindler would say, trying to justify what he's doing."
It's the things like this that RMS says that really disgust me.
On 18/12/13 13:58, oralfloss wrote:
> 56:04 "Are you actually putting the needs of having no non free
> software above the needs of feeding my kid?"
>
> "Absolutely. I don't see much difference between what you're saying
> and what, uh, a thief or swindler would say, trying to justify what
> he's doing."
RMS is exactly right, but the way he said it is easily taken out of
context. The presenter suggested that if he didn't release proprietary
software he wouldn't eat, *which simply wasn't true*. Either he could
find another job, or he could use social welfare (which admittedly isn't
a good option).
A thief is the same, he/she has a reason for stealing, i.e. feeding
themselves or their family, and refusing to accept they can do another
job to earn a living. Do the ends justify the means, especially if there
are other ways to reach those ends? Not if those means are unethical and
there is a better way.
Of course not everyone accepts that proprietary software is bad. Not
everyone accepts that stealing is bad either. If you think that
proprietary software isn't bad, not sure why you'd be on this forum...
Andrew.
So you admit it was a strawman. Not very rational thinking.
Here's what I said:
"Some software hippy extremists like RMS compare the 2 as if they are equally bad"
Here's what RMS said:
"Absolutely. I don't see much difference between what you're saying and what, uh, a thief or swindler would say, trying to justify what he's doing."
Tell me what strawman there is here.
Heh, omitting something, aren't we?
>There are levels of "ethical" actions. There's a big difference between stealing or killing for money and developing non-free software.
>Some software hippy extremists like RMS compare the 2 as if they are equally bad, however rational thinkers like GNUser and I realize that there is a difference between a petty "unethical action" and a completely unethical action.
So first you claim RMS says murdering and non-free software are the same.
And then you provide no evidence when asked.
That's what a strawman is.....
It's a shame that all you can do is critique someone's words and disect them as much as you can just to prove nothing other than that I made a minor mistake. It's no wonder why discussion never go anywhere around here.
My point is that he compares unethical actions to other unethical actions, and finds little difference. That is what I showed evidence for with the video, times, and a direct quote. Murdering was just another example of another unethical action.
Before you speak to me about some logical fallacies realize how ironic you're being. Are you really trying to defend freedom or just win an internet debate? I'm clearly showing my personal views on subjects while all you can do is disect my words as if you're some logical expert.
>Before you speak to me about some logical fallacies realize how ironic you're being. Are you really trying to defend freedom or just win an internet debate?
I pointed the error in your ways to yourself since you seemed so reluctant to see (or admit) it.
>I'm clearly showing my personal views on subjects while all you can do is disect my words as if you're some logical expert.
If it's my personal view you want I agree with Stallman. Proprietary software in unethical. I personally don't think it's "decent and honest".
On 18/12/13 16:19, oralfloss wrote:
> My point is that he compares unethical actions to other unethical
> actions, and finds little difference.
No, he compared the *response* to one unethical action to another.
Andrew.
"Are you actually putting the needs of having no non free software above the needs of feeding my kid?"
"Absolutely. I don't see much difference between what you're saying and what, uh, a thief or swindler would say, trying to justify what he's doing."
oralfloss wrote:
> There are levels of "ethical" actions. There's a big difference
> between stealing or killing for money and developing non-free
> software.
...
> Some software hippy extremists like RMS compare the 2 as if they are
> equally bad
...
> Tell me what strawman there is here.
Here:
> equally bad
Did RMS ever say or even suggest that proprietary software and murder
are equally bad? Please stop trolling,
Andrew.
I stand by the same reply I made to lembas.
He said exactly the same thing I said: that just because you can make money from something unethical does not mean that it's OK.
He compared it to theft (I think) as an analogy. This was an incredibly simple analogy: proprietary software is unethical, theft is unethical. In the same way we don't excuse theft because it makes you money, he doesn't excuse proprietary software because it makes people money.
An analogy like this does not imply that you think the two things are the same. Please, this is not that complicated. I shouldn't have to explain to you how analogies work.
I never said they were the same, or that anyone else said they were the same. I shouldn't have to explain to you how to comprehend english.
What I did say is that hippy software extremists think they are equally bad, which is true in the case of RMS.
Look, get some sleep, and once you're feeling rested, look up what a strawman is.
RMS never said that the developing proprietary software is equally as bad as theft. He said quite clearly that just because an unethical action gets you money does not mean it's unethical, and he used a thief as an example, an analogy.
What he actually quite clearly said is that he sees little difference between the two.
No, can you please listen to him? He said he sees no difference in the same justification used. The justification. The *justification*. He never said that theft and proprietary software development are the same. He said that the "feeds my children" justification is no different.
Well, RMS tends to say things he shouldn't, so Oralfloss reasoning is more than justified. And anyway, YES feeding my kids is enough justification. How can you disagree with that? What, are you so fucking retarded that if you had your kids and wife starving you wouldn't do ANYTHING to help them? Yes, I would try every legal and morally right thing first, but in the end, I would steal food to give them. And if you don't... I feel sorry for your kids if you don't! -.-
That being said, people should stop DEMANDING that software gets released as free software and start creating opportunities for that to happen. Criticizing people just because they write a piece of software and sell it, that's just stupid.
What you're saying doesn't make sense. Writing proprietary software that makes you money requires a huge amount of calculated and controlled effort. It isn't a desperate last resort to feed your poor starving family. The last resort to feeding your poor starving family is more likely to be theft.
But even that is a highly unlikely scenario. What happens in reality is they get a job. You know, they go to a place like Wal-mart, McDonald's, or whatever else is in their town, and they hand in a job application.
Writing proprietary software is never used for the purpose of preventing your family from starving. Proprietary software development is lucrative, and something very few people do.
I am starting to think you can't read. You misunderstood Oralfloss arguments, and now mine! -.-
I was saying that IF my kids were starving, as a LAST RESORT I WOULD STEAL FOOD! That is to say that sometimes, unethical things can be justified. Got it?
And as for the "get a job" thing... guess what... those people already have a job! THEY ARE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS!!!!! THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, THEY WRITE SOFTWARE!
Also, I don't know in what country you live in, but EUROPE AND USA ARE IN A FINANCIAL CRISIS THESE DAYS! You don't just hand a job application and get the job. Many friends of mine who WANT to work, NEED to work, SEEK WORK, can't get one. Stop with the bullshit line "get a job". If you are good at writing software and can make money from it, you have better chance than getting a job and Macdonald these days.
Anyway, I again say this: HELP CREATING WAYS FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE ON FREE SOFTWARE, INSTEAD OF CRITICIZING PEOPLE WHO MAKE A LIVING WITH PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE. THOSE PEOPLE ALSO WORK WITH FREE SOFTWARE IN THEIR SPARE TIME! YOU OWE THEM!
"Also, I don't know in what country you live in, but EUROPE AND USA ARE IN A FINANCIAL CRISIS THESE DAYS! You don't just hand a job application and get the job. "
You got a point there.
I don't like this whole argument of "just quit your job, find another one! go into the coal-mines or the steel-factory" or
"just get a job at mcdonalds; your family doesn't need much money".
Those people don't know what they're talking about. A job at mcdonalds is nothing everyone can built a happy life on.
And honestly: developing proprietary software is not good and I think they should try to somehow get something else; but it's not that someone dies everytime they sell a program.
Hey GNUser, I know it's hard, but maybe you can manage to calm down a bit?
I mean they'll bann you otherwise and then you achieved nothing.
Believe me, your words will only have a chance to be heard if you speak them in a calm manner.
Lol, maybe I'll get banned for saying this. Who knows.
Lol, they will ban you alright... for trying to make me calm down (that way they don't get to ban me) :P
And yes, I have seen the storm coming... things are about to change here, with members wanting to become moderators (for our protection of course -.- ) and some people who don't even participate that much here wanting to say who gets to stay and who gets to go (see the FSF endorsed thread)... Yes, people like me will probably get banned. Who loses? The forum, and the few good honest people who stay, too afraid to speak up their own mind. Still I thank you for the advice. I actually enjoyed our "debates" even if there was a moment we could have cut each others throat :P In the end I achieved something, you realized why "illegal sharing" is bad ;) No pirates here, just illegal sharing :)
Remember what I once told you about the hammer staying a hammer no matter what use you give it? Well, that's the problem here. People can come here and say whatever they want as long as they remain "civil", but when someone says "fuck you, I have to give food to my son" everyone gets offended. Apparently for some guys here good manners are above everything else... even reason.
I am happy to see that someone understand that "getting a job" is not that much easy these days and that proprietary software is not killing people. I dislike proprietary software, but I don't attack those who create it. For me, Canonical is a lot worse, because they produced free software that spies on their users. Free software should mean freedom, not "you are free to look at the way we spy on you and control you, here is the source code of our spying tool". :P
Well, see you around (until one of us gets banned :P)
I'm not aware of any cases like this. Moderation here is very "hands-off". You're confusing the desire of some of the users for how they think it should be with how it actually is.
I recognize that there are *many* users who want to change the moderation for the bad. As far as I could see those are many long-established members, some of them even participate in the development of trisquel (correct me if I'm wrong).
So I think it's more like the base of the community wants to protect themselves from new influences;
but I hope you're right and it's not the majority. Time will show.
"(...) there was a moment we could have cut each others throat :P"
Forget about that! We just had a bad start ;)
" In the end I achieved something"
Yeah, but I think I had reached the conclusion faster if you had put it in a less offending way...
You know, people have the tendency to not listening anymore once they feel attacked. After all, they're only humans.
"People can come here and say whatever they want as long as they remain "civil""
AND as long as they don't criticize the fsf, you forgot that ;)
"but when someone says "fuck you, I have to give food to my son" everyone gets offended. Apparently for some guys here good manners are above everything else... even reason."
That's true, but really a lot of people think so. I always admired RMS for his ability to stay calm no matter how he gets offended.
I think you'll reach more people that way and your words will have a bigger impact. Just my point of view!
>are you so fucking retarded
Please, try to remain civil.
How else can you sit in front of the computer and code if you cannot eat and risk passing out? :-)
Get a job. ;)
More seriously, sell support for free software, whether you wrote it or not, or do it as a side activity. It's not a very realistic scenario where someone can't get a job delivering pizza, or be a janitor, etc., but can be a (proprietary) software developer.
RMS has used that argument before where you should simply "get a real job being a factory worker" if you want to make money from selling non-free software and therefore are an unethical person.
But what if your skills lie in coding? Is the message that RMS is trying to convey is that we need to NOT be coders for a living? Is all of the free software code supposed to be written by students and those with "real jobs" who code free software in their free time as a hobby? That seems to be the impression amongst the free software community.
From the track record of most free software projects, they often drag their feet with updates and have no real deadlines or motivation to update or release their software at all. Developers are often distracted by their full time jobs or the students are distracted by their coursework. If there is a money element involved, then they will move their focus to the free software project.
Most software development jobs are custom software, not proprietary software.
Hmm...not really. Have you read the collection of "Halloween Documents"? The reason I'm part of the open source community is that we have a company known as Microsoft that essentially is controlling how productive any company can be if they choose to use Windows and its associated apps. And in reality that productivity is being severely limited by the quality of Microsoft coding. Open source is "the right thing to do" not because it fails to generate income, but because it does not outlaw the programmer's thoughts (as in the case of software patents) and because it naturally results in better quality code being written. And it is also a tool to make companies like Microsoft unable to successfully compete in the future. In other words, eventually Microsoft will no longer be the bully standing on my back. Open source is not a money making venture...it's about Microsoft and similar companies losing their control over the rest of us.
Sincerely,
Arthur Baldwin
On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:04 AM, "name at domain" <name at domain> wrote:
RMS has used that argument before where you should simply "get a real job
being a factory worker" if you want to make money from selling non-free
software and therefore are an unethical person.
But what if your skills lie in coding? Is the message that RMS is trying to
convey is that we need to NOT be coders for a living? Is all of the free
software code supposed to be written by students and those with "real jobs"
who code free software in their free time as a hobby? That seems to be the
impression amongst the free software community.
From the track record of most free software projects, they often drag their
feet with updates and have no real deadlines or motivation to update or
release their software at all. Developers are often distracted by their full
time jobs or the students are distracted by their coursework. If there is a
money element involved, then they will move their focus to the free software
project.
You do realize that RMS himself faced that question and situation? He is a professional software writer and he decided against writing proprietary software for living.
Instead he wrote free software for living. Much of free software is written today by paid professionals in addition to the students and hobbyists.
One example proves nothing. It's like "we don't have a financial crisis, THIS guy has a job".
RMS has outstanding programming skills and a bachelor degree at MIT. I think he was pretty much in the situation to try out things without fears for his financiel position.
And after all he decided against family and children; he is free to do so, but again, a bad example for "how you can make a living without coding prop. software".
I am a member!
În 2013-12-21 19:36, name at domain a scris:
> a bad example for "how you can make a living without
> coding prop. software".
You don't follow the Trisquel Community Guidelines:
"Non-free software is never a solution so please do not rationalize,
justify, or minimize the consequences of proposing non-free software as
a solution."
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
First, I think you should better provide arguments which show that I'm wrong instead of pointing towards the rule not to talk about certain things.
Second, your definitly wrong. I didn't rationalize, justify or minimize the consequences of *proposing non-free software as a solution*. I was talking about *developing* proprietary software and make a living from it.
You might think that it's all the same, but it's not.
You don't put yourself under any risk if you choose not to endorse proprietary software. In contrast, the developer of proprietary software does since he has to quit his job and find another one.
//edit
and by the way, while signing up my trisquel account I never agreed explicitly to those guidlines as far as I remember.
Also the word "guideline" implies that it's not a binding contract but a rather a document of orientation.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios