We need more of Richard Stallman's ideas, not less

ploum.net We need more of Richard Stallman, not less

We need more of Richard Stallman, not less écrit par Ploum, Lionel Dricot, ingénieur, écrivain de science-fiction, développeur de logiciels libres.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1366698

Richard Stallman was right since the very beginning. Every warning, every prophecy realised. And, worst of all, he had the solution since the start. The problem is not Richard Stallman or the Free Software Foundation. The problem is us. The problem is that we didn’t listen.

You're viewing a single thread.

37 comments

The problem with copyleft is that it makes it inherently difficult to make a living off of developing software. It prevents people from using the most straight forward way of selling their product. To be fair, some people do make it work but it's either because they sell enterprise support or SaaS. This model doesn't work for desktop applications and regular users. All you're left with is donations. Go look at some of the average salaries for incredibly popular software like VLC. You won't like what you'll find.
- “When we switched over from having a ‘Donate’ button right next to the download button, to having that ‘pay what you want including $0′ format, the amount of revenue we were making increased by 10x,” Foré shares. “That small design change increased revenue a ton.”
  
  This is the model they use at drive by rpg and dms guild. I've paid $0 and then WENT BACK after using a product and paid money.
- It's really a problem with the way copyright, or copyleft advocacy is done, written or proposed .... there will be an endless debate about it forever.
  One of the things that should change is our collective culture of paying for things we value and are actually important in our society and civilization. Everyone should be made aware of the work that developers, admins, hobbyists and programmers do for free. We should normalize donations, contributions and subscriptions to these things and these people.
  If it became normal that thousands or millions of users everywhere contributed dollars or even cents for the work that is done for the benefit of everyone .... there would be more than enough money to protect the copyright of software and even pay for the work these people do.
- One of the few things Stallman is wrong about is his view that Free Software is compatible with capitalism
  
  Huh. Interesting. Do you have a source to understand why he believes so?
  
  I couldn't tell you why he believes such a thing, but this page summarizes this wrong belief.
  
  This article doesn't necessarily make a statement on whether FOSS is compatible with capitalism. It could be that RMS encourages developers to charge for free software because it keeps FOSS projects sustainable while devs are forced to operate in a capitalist framework. It seems to me that the FSF has always refrained from directly making any kind of statement on capitalism, focusing (as the article says) solely on software freedom.
  
  By failing to make a statement on capitalism, it necessarily assumes the two are not in conflict. This is a bad assumption.
  The business model suggested in the article does not exist. Companies which distribute Free Software make their money by selling secondary products and services, like Canonical or Red Hat's support services, Firefox's Google search integration, or System 76's hardware, not by selling the Free Software itself.
  The ultimate goal of the FSF is that all software should be Free. With that in mind, the question we must ask is this:
  Why is there nonFree software?
  The answer is the profit motive. Without the profit motive, there would be no incentive to make software nonFree.
  Consider the examples Stallman cites as the inciting incedents of his entire Free Software advocacy career: Xerox's printer drivers and Scribe's paywall. Why did Xerox refuse to share its driver source code? To protect its profits. Why did Unilogic ask Brian Reid to put time bombs in his code? To profit from their investment in buying that code from him.
  To ignore this is fundamentally a failure, or a refusal, to understand the conflict the Free Software movement finds itself in.
  
  By failing to make a statement on capitalism, it necessarily assumes the two are not in conflict.
  No it doesn't. Either there's no logic in that statement at all, or you're playing 5D chess with time travel and I'm playing checkers. While the article says:
  Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it
  it makes no statement on whether this activity represents a sustainable business model, nor does it explore how selling FOSS may or may not affect other businesses. I said:
  It seems to me that the FSF has always refrained from directly making any kind of statement on capitalism, focusing (as the article says) solely on software freedom.
  because the article itself ended with:
  When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.
  I don't (and can't) know whether the absence of discussion on FOSS' relation to capitalism represents a touch of myopia (as you suggest) on the part of RMS & the FSF, whether RMS intends to be the Gary Yourofsky of free software and it's a deliberate choice for the sake of optics, or whether it betrays a pro-capitalism stance, but my feeling is that RMS is more concerned about FOSS as a vehicle for the creation and preservation of a digital commons, and a safeguard against privacy violation, and likely doesn't have terribly many well informed thoughts and opinions on economic systems.
  
  Since you've completely ignored my main point, I'll just repeat it:
  Why is there nonFree software?
  The answer is the profit motive.
  Capitalism is not a side issue. It is the central issue.
  
  While you've ignored, or grievously misunderstood, all of my points, I didn't ignore yours; it just has absolutely no bearing on my position that:
  This article doesn’t necessarily make a statement on whether FOSS is compatible with capitalism.
  ...and you haven't said anything that convincingly disputes that statement; if your very obviously correct point that profitMotive + softwareEngineer == proprietarySoftware was somehow meant to refute it, then I'm failing to see how.
  
  Failing to state their incompatibility is logically identical to stating their compatibility. This is trivial.
  
  Let me make sure I'm understanding:
  If I don't tell you that I love bananas, then, logically, this means that I hate bananas?
  
  Hasn't capital been trying to get rid of free software for a while? Isn't free software an antithesis to for-profit software most of the time?
  
  It has and it is, respectively.

37 comments