
The Trouble with Free Software - moron4hire
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trouble-free-software-sean-mcbeth/
======
h2odragon
"Stop publishing source / programmers should be paid" ... I can't disagree;
but we tried that once, remember? That's what the software world _was_ until
after it became possible to build free software using free software.

The free sharing of creativity in software has advanced the world and made the
life of most everybody on the planet measurably better. The several thousand
burnt out, used up, F/OSS developers who didn't cash in (and I count myself
among that number in my arrogance) are not too large a price to pay for having
the world we have now vs the world we had then.

~~~
moron4hire
While I wrote this with the Software Freedoms in mind, which the GPL is an
expression of, I'm only using it as a model for discussion. I'm not explicitly
saying "license under the GPL".

So with that said, the GPL does not say "put your code up on Github". It says
"give your code to your users". It also doesn't say "don't charge for your
software." I'm talking about taking these ideas literally. The only people who
get your software from you are people who have paid, and they get the source
code along with it.

People have always surmised that, because of Software Freedom #2
(redistribution), they could turn around and release your code for free, so
the majority of people have defaulted to just releasing their code, in the
open, for free. I question whether or not that would actually be the case, or
how big of an impact it would have.

I'm also not really sure I like Freedom #2 in its most explicit sense. I am
starting to think that I'd prefer to operate under a model where anyone may
modify My Code as they want (Freedom #1), and release the modifications as
they see fit (Freedom #3), but the original base of it all, My Code, they need
to get from me. In the context of "getting paid", I think that model might
work better. But that's more of a minor detail.

I'm not saying "hide your code". I'm just saying, "stop leaving it laying
around."

Yes, the world has benefited greatly. But Google and Facebook seem to have
benefited more.

------
kalbfled
The article seems laden with strawman arguments. A lot of FOSS software is
exceptional, and it isn't made by Google, et. all. For examples: Ubuntu,
Blender 3D, etc.

(I realize that Ubuntu includes binary blobs, and Blender gets money from
Google sometimes via Summer of Code. I don't think those facts invalidate my
point.)

~~~
moron4hire
Canonical is a $110 million company. They are stewards of Linux, but they
profit from the free work that others are doing. I'm calling into question
whether or not that's enough. In the case of Canonical, it's a tough call,
though getting a little less tough the more ad-tech they push more ad-tech
into it.

On the extreme end, the massive profitability of companies like Google,
Facebook, Amazon, etc., is a signal that they are taking more than they are
giving.

And there is a long, long tail of other, popular projects that have had huge
impact on the world, for which the developers have not received anything
remotely approaching fair compensation. Look at the impact jQuery had on the
world in the mid 2000's. Looking at Wikipedia just now, it says that it's in
use on 73% of the 10 million most popular websites. Surely, somewhere,
somebody could have coughed up a few dollars.

