this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
634 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59219 readers
4492 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shapis@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

When software is open-source and monetized, it strikes a critical balance. Users gain the freedoms associated with FOSS – the liberty to run, modify, and share – while developers receive the financial recognition for their contributions.

I never understood how these two concepts can coexist.

Lets say you made something FOSS and sold it to one person. Can't that person just... redistribute it for free? Which kinda makes you trying to make a living out of selling it much much more difficult or downright impossible?

[–] dannym@lemmy.escapebigtech.info 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Of course, people can be dishonest, but nothing stops the same from happening with proprietary software. Cracks do and will always exist. As Louis Rossmann aptly put it, "If you choose to steal paid FOSS software nobody is stopping you, that's between you and your God."

While it's technically feasible for a purchaser to redistribute FOSS software, this act doesn't negate the continuous value a developer can offer. Think of it akin to a chef in an open kitchen; the recipe may be visible to all, but the chef's expertise in crafting and adapting the dish, as well as the dining experience provided, is what customers pay for.

In the world of proprietary software, the illusion of control is often just that – an illusion. Despite the efforts to safeguard against unauthorized distribution such as DRM, software licenses, verification servers, etc. piracy remains a prevalent issue. The key difference is that FOSS is upfront about this reality, building its model on transparency and trust rather than control.

Morally speaking, the FOSS model respects user freedom and fosters a community built on mutual respect and collaboration. It acknowledges the possibility of misuse but chooses to focus on positive engagement and the creation of value that extends beyond mere code. In this way, FOSS aligns more closely with the principles of intellectual freedom and individual empowerment, encouraging a market where ideas and innovations are shared and improved upon collectively, rather than hoarded for profit.

[–] shapis@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

the recipe may be visible to all, but the chef’s expertise in crafting and adapting the dish, as well as the dining experience provided, is what customers pay for.

I mean, you cant ctrl+c ctrl+v the dish. That's the difference. If anyone could ctrl+c ctrl+v meals I think most restaurants would go bankrupt. Right?

[–] dannym@lemmy.escapebigtech.info 2 points 11 months ago

I'm not so sure about that.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 11 months ago

I shipped several android apps that were GPL licensed and FOSS but had in-app paid options. You could also download a fully unlocked version from f-droid. They were quite profitable and the statistics were surprising. Turns out people are willing to pay for good software