Just read through his site, and unless I missed something...

I think it's more of an ethical thing. Like being a vegan. It's not that there's an argument for or against it, it's about your system of morals.

>Just read through his site, and unless I missed something, he literally doesn't have a single factual argument for why paid software should be banned.
Probably that due to the simple fact that he has never argued for paid software to be banned. Could be that.

>If you literally think almost everyone on earth is insane
They live under an insane system, not really the fault of the people who believe the insanity.

>Good job defeating your own argument
That'd be more of his. And yes, his attitude towards other digital shit seems suspect at least. Maybe he just wants to start small? A lot of code is free already, so going from there to banning non free code is simpler than creating a new system for distribution of art.

Okay, here's an ethical program. Animal-bases food production stops, farmers across the globe now live on the streets.

>Maybe he just wants to start small?
you're giving him too much credit. he's just small minded

1. He DOES explicitly argue that some basic things are human rights and should banned from payment.
2. "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others"
Banning people from rights to their own work is in practice banning them from charging for it since they're competing with free

Well yes? That's exactly what I asked. Is it purely his feelings, or does he have any factual arguments?

>They live under an insane system, not really the fault of the people who believe the insanity.
>Everyone is dumb except me, i've seen the insanity of the system
no

>disprove a negative
wew lads

Easy fix, convert the farmers from animal based meat to synthetic meat since the technology is evolved enough now. Your argument assumes that one system can't be replaced by another, much like how cars replaced horse and buggy manufacturers.

>He DOES explicitly argue that some basic things are human rights and should banned from payment.
Not software

>"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others"
Is not banning paid software, this concept may be incredibly weird for you, but I'm running an operating system 24/7 for which I haven't paid a cent and I can distribute as many copies of it as I want. Yet the people working on that are paid.

I also help fund projects like Krita and Blender, which anyone can make copies of and download for free.

Paying for a single binary made with secret sauce source code which then installs rootkits on your machine to make sure you don't use it without being allowed to is NOT the 'only way' for paid software, actually I'd say it's the worst.

>he literally doesn't have a single factual argument for why paid software should be banned
Because he never argued for this? Also:
Did

Don't know how that did got in there.

>Everyone is dumb except me
It's not about muh intelligence. Just a balance of free time, interest about a topic and desire to come up with improvement.

Some faggot researching cancer isn't going to invest too much of his/her free time on the valuation of digital goods.

>Not software
Either that's because there's already free basic software. Otherwise that's a huge inconsistency in his beliefs.
>Is not banning paid software
Don't you know what "in practice" means?
>Yet the people working on that are paid.
This works fine for some projects, but if you're forced to depend on external funders that decide what you can afford to program, it's not exactly freedom there buddy. Sounds like how the music industry used to be before the internet.

There are millions of people with more software experience than you who disagree. They are not all insane. If you think they are, you are stupid.

>with more software experience
The topic is barely about software, beyond the understanding that you can copy it freely, which is something your average /v/ tard does. And just because someone makes software, doesn't guarantee the person cares to consider alternative models of distribution, if the ones available already serve them well.

He used to sell GNU software. He isn't against making money from Free Software, he actually encourages it. Unfortunately not many people make commercial Free Software.

Sometimes I feel sorry for him. He cannot use any smart TV or play any vidya but Super Tux Kart because of his arbitrary rules. He, according to his rules, cannot watch any movie or tv show or any kind of TV program at all because they can't be modified at your will since you don't have all the audio tracks, sound effects, visual effects, takes and so on.
I like the idea of free software, but he is an asshole and an arrogant. He is a living contradiction as well. He claims that everyone is free, but he is the one that limits his freedom by not using any kind of propietary media. I'm so fucking sure he alyaws wanted to watch Die Hard but couldn't because his dumb ideology.

>Otherwise that's a huge inconsistency in his beliefs.
What part of 'certain' human rights don't you understand ? I would assume he thinks these should be education and healthcare, as that is typical of those with his political leaning.

>Don't you know what "in practice" means?
You obviously don't, as I've proven that there is no banning of paid software, either in theory or practice.

>This works fine for some projects, but if you're forced to depend on external funders
How do you think the paid software industry works ? Who do you think pays for those developers ? Are you literally retarded ?

>He, according to his rules, cannot watch any movie or tv show or any kind of TV program at all because they can't be modified at your will since you don't have all the audio tracks, sound effects, visual effects, takes and so on.

Uh, no. He doesn't watch them because they require Digital Restrictions Management software to play. He is fine with consuming shows and movies.

There are millions of people with more [field you think is relevant] experience than you who disagree. They are not all insane. If you think they are, you are stupid.

>education and healthcare
heavily uses paid software m8
>I've proven that there is no banning of paid software
>american reading comprehension
It's not what we have now, it's in practice what stallman wants
>How do you think the paid software industry works[space]?
They get paid by the actual customers who get the actual benefit from the software. Customers are free to decide for themselves what they think is worth money. not a limited number of external funders.

>heavily uses paid software m8
And would still be paid software if it was FOSS, it's paid for by taxes.

>american reading comprehension
I'm a swefag, and you have no argument.

>They get paid by the actual customers who get the actual benefit from the software.
Exactly the way Krita, Blender, Linux etc are being paid.

>Customers are free to decide for themselves what they think is worth money. not a limited number of external funders.
What are you even trying to say here ? That you are somehow only 'free to decide for yourself' if you give your money to proprietary software vendors and not when you give your money to FOSS developers ?

Are you high ?

he never broke out of the 70s did he

>it's paid for by taxes.
Why would you waste tax money on something you can get for free?
>I'm a swefag
obviously does not exclude you from american reading comprehension.
Again It's not what we have now, but it's in practice what stallman wants
>when you give your money to FOSS developers[space]?
But people don't do that m8. The majority of funding comes from a limited amount of external corporations and foundations who then get power over the project. Donations alone are not enough to pay the wages of all staff.
Also hilarious that your ideal is exactly what we have now, except "purchase" is called "donation"

>Why would you waste tax money on something you can get for free?
You don't get it for free, you pay for it with taxes, just like you pay for PROPRIETARY software with taxes.

>obviously does not exclude you from american reading comprehension.
Do you have an actual argument ?

>The majority of funding comes from a limited amount of external corporations and foundations who then get power over the project.
LOL, you think the end user who paid for his copy of proprietary software X has any power over said project ?

You think Adobe will listen to Joe User's feature request ?

No, a corporation which buys a lot of seats of said software get a say on the direction of the project.

>Donations alone are not enough to pay the wages of all staff.
Really ? What part of the 'staff' works for free ?

>Also hilarious that your ideal is exactly what we have now, except "purchase" is called "donation"
Yeah, except the whole thing where the source code is open so that it can be vetted for malicious code, improved upon by developers outside of the core project, not laden with rootkit DRM to prevent you from running unauthorized copies etc.

Yeah, apart from all that, it's EXACTLY the same.

>you pay for it with taxes
Why would you waste tax money on something you can get for free?
>Do you have an actual argument[space]?
It's in practice what stallman wants
>you think the end user [...] has any power over said project[space]?
No. That's exactly the point. The developers are free to develop whatever they want as long as enough people think it's worth buying. This is not the case when someone else pays your salary
>Really[space]? What part of the 'staff' works for free[space]?
>american reading comprehension
Read the entire line retard.
>apart from all that, it's EXACTLY the same.
I was talking about how to finance the code being written at all, dummy. Not the code itself

>Why would you waste tax money on something you can get for free?
Because it very likely wouldn't be made unless you pay for it. But why pay for something being made as proprietary software which you have zero control over, instead of paying for something being made which is open source, thus giving you control over said software you paid for.

>It's in practice what stallman wants
You have made no argument supporting this, you just claim that this is what he wants, despite showing zero evidence of him stating that.

>No. That's exactly the point. The developers are free to develop whatever they want as long as enough people think it's worth buying. This is not the case when someone else pays your salary
Of course it is, how do you think Blender and Krita is able to pay their developers ? Hint, it's because people think it's development is worth paying for.

>Read the entire line retard.
Did, again what part of the 'staff' is unpaid ?

>I was talking about how to finance the code being written at all, dummy. Not the code itself
Then what was your point ?

>it very likely wouldn't be made unless you pay for it
Yes it would. GE provides medical imaging to over 200 countries. If Sweden decides to save taxpayer money it still gets made, it hardly even affects GE's budget.
>You have made no argument supporting this
see >how do you think Blender and Krita is able to pay their developers ?
Because corporations fund them. That's what I already said.
Funding =/= donation dummy. Funding comes with strings attached. Do you seriously think Microsoft is one of the main funders of Linux just because they want their competitor to have more money?
>what part of the 'staff' is unpaid ?
>american reading comprehension
never said that.
>Then what was your point ?
That your ideal world uses the same financial model as we do now.

>commies
>logic
ayyy lmao

FOSS is simply too high iq for arch-fags to understand.

Attached: 1531181866203.gif (500x360, 1.3M)

Jow Forums in 2018
wew

> whatever OP doesn't possess the brainpower or moral compass to comprehend is arbitrary and unsupported by factual arguments.

>Did I miss something?
Yes, you did miss gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

>Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can

Remember to be able to tell libre and gratis apart.

enlighten me then, that's exactly why I made the thread.
>moral compass
something tells me you don't really understand what "factual" means

As already stated, free redistribution is in practice the same as a ban on selling software.

>Yes it would. GE provides medical imaging to over 200 countries.
For free ? No, they're not. Why are you making an argument based upon a lie ?

>see
But I've already countered that nonsense argument, charging 'per copy' is not the only way to pay for software, I've also provided current real world examples of successful software not charging per copy.

>Because corporations fund them. That's what I already said.
Actually, individuals make up a large portion of the funding, particularly with Krita.

Also, how does this even matter ? The corporations are customers just as individual users, they are funding the development of these applications because they USE them. Just as they are funding the development of proprietary software because they USE them.

Can you point out an actual argument here, you are going in circles.

>Do you seriously think Microsoft is one of the main funders of Linux just because they want their competitor to have more money?
Microsoft is not one of the main funders of Linux just because they pay a fee to the Linux Foundation, the money said foundation gather is a drop in the ocean of the actual money that is spent on Linux development.

But getting back to the actual discussion, yes, you can buy influence with money, but what does this have to do with proprietary versus FOSS a la Stallman ?

>never said that.
You said the money wasn't enough to pay for all the 'staff', so what is this unpaid staff ?

>That your ideal world uses the same financial model as we do now.
Oh, you mean paying people for doing work, no shit!

How does this tie in to any argument you've made ?

>For free ? No, they're not.
That's the point retard. If GE switched to FOSS, there is no reason for an individual country to keep paying them, since they still get the product paid for by everybody else. You agree yourself that this is unreasonable for GE.
>I've also provided current real world examples[...]
Your examples prove my point exactly. They survive on funding/donations, not sales, because sales are in practice banned.
>Actually, individuals make up a large portion of the funding
No. Only for smaller scale shit with like 3 paid devs. Blender even has to hide the amount they get from corporations, to make donations seem more significant. see
blender.org/foundation/development-fund/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Foundation#Members
>you can buy influence with money, but what does this have to do with proprietary versus FOSS a la Stallman ?
Because buying influence is exactly what the FOSS funding/donation model leads to for significant projects. This is shown by your own examples. Developers have to depend on companies like Microsoft instead of the actual users.
>You said the money[...]
>american reading comprehension
donations =/= "the money"

this guy seems to have some sort of experience of these things
drewdevault.com/2018/02/24/The-road-to-sustainable-FOSS.html

He's wrong and retarded. My extensive experience of using Gentoo to browse Jow Forums and watch anime for the past 10 months prove that grassroots FOSS development is 100% financially sustainable and can replace companies like Cisco

you know you're a brainlet insufferable newfag if you dont appreciate RMS and what he did but try to think you're better than him.
no one is perfect. also if you read it, does he sound arrogant anywhere saying "this is the only right way"
No, he mentions everytime how important is it FOR HIM that privacy is important. how important it is FOR HIM about open source shit.
he always keeps mentioning, that a certain software may be better but he just doesnt care for it. he likes his stuff and he's a master at the stuff he uses. he doesn't talk about stuff he doesn't know but apparently you're too intelligent to comprehend it.
adding to it, did you miss the part about him feeling sad and destroyed over his friends joining companies to write code which was meant to be free and open source. he couldn't stop it but he says that he uderstood it but he doesn't like it. what's wrong in it?
he never said that he paved the way and shows you the right way. it was all your projection.
did you miss the part where he refused to use a proprietary software i.e flash i think in a presentation at a college.
the reason he gave was he wrote his software keeping in mind about privacy and shit and he tells that if he isn't serious about his priniciples, no one will use his software for the same reasons.
and it's true would you take advice about how to stay sober from alcohol from a current alcoholic who cannot stay sober?
fucking nu-Jow Forums pisses me off sometimes ffs

wtf this is actually real

saved

Attached: sdddfsdfsdf.jpg (799x83, 19K)

Farmers across the globe find new ways to make a living

It takes labour to create the very first copy and that is what you pay for not your ad infinitum copy

you miss the freedom part

Attached: rms_book.jpg (492x640, 73K)

It's time to face the facts. Richard Stallman is nothing more than a whining, overly obese autistic manbaby who has not done anything beneficial for the computing OR technology world in the past 20 years. Seriously. Name something that RMS has done after 1995 besides bitching, crying, and moaning about bullshit that does not matter, or making some retarded, incomprehensible speech.

He demands that Linux be called GNU/Linux. That is fucking insane. The only reason GNU, GPL, and FSF are still a THING is because of Linus and the invention of Linux. If anything, Stallman should rename GNU to Linux/GNU, because without Linus, the GNU, GPL, and FSF would not be a thing anymore.

Stallman still has the fucking gonads to act like he's superior to everyone else. Saying shit such as "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone" right after Steve Jobs' death. What an asshole. Stallman has not even programmed a single line of code since 2008, that was AFTER he essentially stopped in 1992.

He should be fucking grateful Linus stepped in to save his ass, and even allowing him to take partial credit for his achievements. If it wasn't for Linus, he would be nothing, he would probably be dead in a Burger King dumpster right now.

Besides, what has he ever even done? He claims to have written eMacs, but in reality he actually cloned gosmacs (the first eMacs that was made for UNIX). He didn't even write 50% of the code in eMacs.

You might say he wrote GCC and GDB, but the truth is that he initally wrote the C compiler, but now the vast majority for the same compiler is done by contributors.

He's a washed up, morbidly obese man who tries to stay relevant by having these retarded arguments that are similar to those found in the Soviet Union. Face it GNU/Freetards, Richard Stallman is a fat dickhead, and the only reason his name is still in the books is because of Linus's achievements.

Free as in freedom not free as in free beer.

Heres your ((You))

>being mad at freedom

Attached: rms_smug.jpg (800x636, 109K)

He's completely okay with paid software. You're just a dipshit who doesn't know what "free software" actually means.

see

Wtf RMS leaves his mom's basement?

>They survive on funding/donations, not sales, because sales are in practice banned.
In practice they are the same fucking thing. Either way you send people out to other organizations to drum up business and get someone else to write a check.
>Because buying influence is exactly what the FOSS funding/donation model leads to for significant projects.
Which is exactly the same thing that happens with paid proprietary software anyway.