@neauoire Yeah, that's about right.
@neauoire so true it hurts.
@neauoire meanwhile GPL battleships are lined up in the docks, but nobody wants to sail them...
@namark GPL is doing nothing to stop companies from running software on servers and delivering frontends via web browsers to users who have no control. it doesn't seem to work well today for its intended purpose.
@cancel Again I'll have to ask you for an example of such a thing with AGPL license on it. For that kind of software the users are people running the servers, not those using the servers.
AGPL allows anyone else small or big to run the same service, identical to the big companies service.
Permissive licenses allow the big company to build a proprietary fork and establish monopoly.
@namark nobody uses AGPL software
@namark (of course, this is being sent across AGPL software!)
@cancel good for nobody, I approve!
Actual developers get paid for actually developing software, not for allowing/disallwiing other people to copy it. Setting it up is a challenge just like any business of course, especially when the status quo is copyright abuse, but it's not impossible.
Informed users can support the developer to do R&D, on their free will, with full understanding of what they are paying for.
For general public, companies providing warranty for specific distribution is something that GPL explicitly allows. Wouldn't it be nice if software had quality standards and came with actual warranty, like any other engineering product, instead of the mess that it is now? Wouldn't it be nice to have local developer agencies/workshops, offering services to general public(fixing, modding and warranty)?
I think that kind of businesses would be feasible if most software is under GPL like license.
GPL (and also MIT/BSD/etc.) software is often used as a kind of uncompensated labor you do to build a "resume" to get hired as an "actual developer" to then develop proprietary software, but I think that's a... problematic situation on multiple fronts
your other suggestions boil down to 'charity' and 'paid support' and I think those have not really worked out
and I think the fundamental problem is that free software, and also open source, operate like gift economies, but everything else like "food" and "housing" and "healthcare" are market economies, and when a gift economy and a market economy meet, the gift economy will just be ruthlessly exploited, and I'm not sure this mismatch can be addressed through *licenses*
ummm... are you talking about some tiny hobby projects?? Most actually successful FOSS projects have paid developers working on them, and these days there are even examples of them being paid by a community of informed users. You might need uncompensated labour to get it started today, but my whole point was that it doesn't have to be that way, and it's only that way because of proprietary software norm.
You claimed paid support never worked out, but you refuse address why it didn't work out. The answer is proprietary software.
You whole argument about gift economy hinges on software development being a production. It's not. Software development is R&D, or maintenance. It's a service. That's what most developers do and that's what most of them are paid for today. No body needs to do any work or expend any resource for you to get the copy of the so called "product". This is a fact and the only reason your so called "market economy of proprietary software"(which is a complete misnomer here) works, is because of absolutely artificial and violations of human rights, such as DRM.
Finally the whole point of GPL is that it can not be exploited like the permissive licenses. If you don't even understand that, than I guess you are not trying to understand, and just want to "win" the argument.
I wish I knew how to express this better, because you seem to have classified me as an enemy. I wish we lived in a world where people could freely give away code for the benefit of everyone without having to beg for money on patreon or from corporations. But I think the GPL, although noble in spirit, is not a complete answer, because it it only compels people to *repay code with more code*, it does not compel people to *pay for code with food and housing and healthcare*.
Whaaa? nooo, I did not classify you as enemyyy... I just like arguing, sometimes too much I guess. If it felt like an attack to you, I apologize.
I'm just trying to illustrate how FOSS(GPL like not permissive) allows building an industry that will pay software developers directly, instead of industry being controlled by a few owners that exploit archaic laws, then hire software developers and pay them breadcrumbs. It seems like that's what you want as well, but you can't see past the arbitrary unnatural social/market norms set by proponents of proprietary software and abuse of copyright. They made a virtual shop with virtual goods, somehow managed to convinced people it's real, and are now doing everything in their power to directly or indirectly justify and maintain that illusion, or otherwise continue to dominate the market.
How is that relevant? I would very much like to live off writing GPL software, up until it's no longer necessary, when open source would become the norm. I'm sure some people do live off writing GPL software even today, and I envy them.
GPL is not designed to guarantee anyone's personal success, it's designed to prevent proprietary software from exploiting people and by extension the industry. My point was that once that is achieved, people would have more ethical opportunities to make money. I guess, I should clarify, that I'll never blame anyone for not using GPL, especially if their livelihood depended on it, but GPL is the most direct path to freedom, and only known way of defeating the established monopolies.
Regarding GPL not working, I think the we have open source software today largely thanks to GPL. OSS movement sprouted out of FOSS movement, as the existing industry's reaction to it, aiming to minimize damage. It was the last chance for proprietary software companies to keep up with FOSS, and they capitalized on it.
You present no logical arguments, only short statements and call my attempts to explain my reasoning a dogma? ok...
What you just alluded to with "not willing to do it yourself" in this context basically sounds like "If you're not a radical extremist then you're wrong". Nice argument... (I guess at least it is one).
I use GPL on all of my personal projects, and I would accept a job on a GPL project, even if it paid less than my current job, as long as I can live off of it and provide for my family. I'm sorry I don't just stop doing anything and die for GPL. That makes everything I said clearly wrong.
@juliobiason Perhaps they should have considered being a Free Software developer instead, since the only point of "open source" is to fellate Fortune 500s.
Revel in the marvels of the universe. We are a collective of forward-thinking individuals who strive to better ourselves and our surroundings through constant creation. We express ourselves through music, art, games, and writing. We also put great value in play. A warm welcome to any like-minded people who feel these ideals resonate with them. Check out our Patreon to see our donations.